:K;:'n v fULj 



\\m\ i !| ' I ' I I' I II II! liii iijli I! I it iii 



GEORGE J. FRITSCHEI 




Class _ 
Book:_^ 






cr 



- Gop>Tight^°. 



CDHiRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



THE FORMULA 
OF CONCORD 

ITS ORIGIN AND CONTENTS 



A CONTRIBUTION TO SYMBOLICS 

BY 
GEORGE J. FRITSCHEL, Ph.D., D.D. 

Professor of Church History 
at Wartburg Seminary, Dubuque, Iowa 



PHILADELPHIA, PA. 

THE LUTHERAN PUBLICATION SOCIETY 

1916 



-*$ 



£ 

i 



Copyright, 1916, by 
THE LUTHERAN PUBLICATION SOCIETY 



&> 



OCT -6 1916 
^CU438755 



DEDICATED 

TO 

THE FUTURE LUTHERAN CHURCH 
OF AMERICA 

UNITED 

ON THE UNALTERABLE BASIS OF HISTORICAL 

LUTHERANISM 




PREFACE 

This volume presents to some extent the fruit of 
several years' studies in symbolics. According to the 
schedule of instruction in the Wartburg Theological 
Seminary, Symbolics is taught as a branch of histor- 
ical science. The author in his class work lays more 
stress upon becoming acquainted with the documents 
themselves than with facts concerning the same. His 
object has been to give to his pupils a first-hand ac- 
quaintance with the norma normata. For this reason 
the historical parts are treated much more briefly than 
in this volume, and much more time is spent upon the 
part of which here only an outline is given. But for 
the instructor a more detailed acquaintance with the 
history of the documents is an absolute necessity. 
The same is also highly profitable for those who de- 
sire to deepen their acquaintance with the Lutheran 
confessions. It is exactly as in intercourse with a per- 
son. If we become acquainted with the history of his 
ancestors, if we know his schooling and his associa- 
tions, then we are better enabled to understand him. 
Likewise in becoming acquainted with the confessions 
of the Lutheran Church, and, above all, the Form of 
Concord, a thorough acquaintance with the times of 
origin and the gradual growth, etc., will help us better 
to understand this last, and by no means least, sym- 
bolical book. 

About two years ago Dr. Neve confided to the 
author that he intended to write a text-book on sym- 
bolics, and requested him to make any suggestions 



PREFACE 



from his experience in teaching this subject. When 
the author had done so the doctor came back with 
the request that the author should take over a certain 
portion of the proposed work. There was no reason 
why this request should not be granted. But when my 
share of the work was finished it was evident that the 
treatment of the Form of Concord was out of pro- 
portion and that a revision and condensation was abso- 
lutely necessary. Dr. Neve, however, was of the 
opinion that the first attempt should nevertheless be 
published as a monograph, so that it might be used 
for collateral reading with the shorter presentation in 
the text-book. It was entirely through his endeavors 
that The Lutheran Publication Society decided to print 
the volume. These facts will somewhat explain its 
scope and purpose. 

The author is well aware of the imperfection of 
his work. He does not imagine that he has succeeded 
in all instances to strike the correct middle line be- 
tween a detailed study of the subject and a treatment 
for post-graduate study. But he expresses the hope 
that until a more capable authority gives us a perfect 
treatment of this topic his labor will not be without 
blessing for some students both within and without 
the theological seminaries. He has often sorely felt 
the scarcity of information concerning this topic 
which exists in theological literature. Above all, he 
expects to render a service to those who have studied 
symbolics under his guidance, and it is his^ sincere 
wish that they may be introduced deeper into the 
spirit of this last and greatest of the confessions of 
the sixteenth century. 



PREFACE vii 

The author cannot close these preliminary remarks 
without referring to the obligations under which he 
has been placed by Dr. J. L. Neve and Dr. L. S. 
Keyser. The former made many suggestions which 
were utilized in revising the manuscript. The latter 
went over the whole manuscript and tried to make it 
a little more palatable for English readers. 

G. J. F. 



CONTENTS 

PART I p AGE 
The Historical Origin of the Formula of Concord 

CHAPTER I 
A History of Lutheran Germany After Luther's Death 

The Status in Germany at the Time of Luther's Death.. 15 

The Smalcald War and Its Consequences 17 

The Augsburg Interim 25 

The Revolt Against the Emperor 30 

The Time After Charles V 35 

CHAPTER II 
The Doctrinal Development of Lutheranism, 1546-1576 

Melanchthon as Leader 38 

Melanchthon's Unionistic Endeavors 40 

Melanchthon and Romanism 41 

Melanchthon and Calvinism 49 

The Practical Results of the Melanchthonian Policy. . 52 

CHAPTER III 
The Different Parties and Controversies 

The Extremes 55 

The Middle Party 53 

The Controversies 63 

CHAPTER IV 
The Endeavors to Unite the Lutheran Church 
Endeavors to Settle the Matter Between Flacius and 

Melanchthon 66 

The Endeavors of the Princes to Unite All Parties 81 

The Endeavors of Andreae to Unite All Parties 91 

The Endeavors of Andreae to Unite All Lutherans 97 

CHAPTER V 
The Completion of the Formula of Concord 

The Maulbrunn Formula 105 

The Torgau Book 107 

The Bergen Book in 

The Publication of the Book of Concord 113 

ix 



x CONTENTS 

CHAPTER VI pace 
The Formula of Concord as a Lutheran Symbol 

Its Adoption 116 

The Rejection of the Formula •• 119 

The Formula of Concord in the Next Centuries 121 

The American Lutheran Church and the Formula of 

Concord 122 

PART II 
The Formula of Concord Itself: A Historical Introduc- 
tion to the Individual Articles and an Analysis of 
the Same 

Analysis of the Preface 

Article One 

Concerning Original Sin 132 

Article Two 
Concerning Free Will 141 

Article Three 
Concerning Justification 154 

Article Four 
Concerning Good Works 161 

Articles Five and Six 
Concerning the Law and the Gospel 166 

Articles Seven and Eight 
Concerning the Eucharist and the Person of Christ 175 

Article Nine 
Concerning the Descent to Hell 213 

Article Ten 
Concerning Adiaphora 215 

Article Eleven 
Concerning Predestination 217 

Article Twelve 

Concerning the Various Sects 225 

Bibliography 226 



INTRODUCTION 

In preparing this work Prof. Fritschel has ren- 
dered a very helpful and valuable service to all who 
are interested in the development of the theology of 
the Evangelical Lutheran Church, that is, in the richest 
theology and the greatest Church in Protestant Chris- 
tendom. 

Lutheran theology as dogma — statement of doctrine 
to which authoritative and symbolic authority has 
been given — reached its culmination in the Formula 
of Concord as officially published in 1580. 

The Small and Large Catechisms of Luther, in 1529, 
the Augsburg Confession and The Apology of Me- 
lanchthon, in 1530 and 1531, and The Smalcald Arti- 
cles of Luther, in 1537, were the preceding Lutheran 
symbols. The great leaders passed away: Luther 
in 1546, Melanchthon in 1560, and Calvin in 1564. 
Naturally there was a period of varied tendencies and 
of earnest discussions and controversies among Luth- 
eran and. Reformed theologians. These doctrinal dif- 
ferences, together with the entangled conditions re- 
sulting from the close relations of church and state, 
demanded and received the prayers and the labors of 
devout and learned Lutheran theologians and others 
who loved the faith of Luther and the unity of Luth- 
eranism, and labored for their maintenance and exten- 
sion. 

This, happily, resulted in the preparation of the 
Formula of Concord, which by its own intrinsic merits 
and its wide reception formed the natural and historic 
xi 



xii INTRODUCTION 

completion of the body of Lutheran Symbols which, 
with the three ancient creeds, constitute the Book of 
Concord. 

The General Synod of the Lutheran Church in the 
United States, in 1909, in a truly broad, irenic and 
historic spirit, while reaffirming its symbolic adherence 
to the Augsburg Confession, also declared that it 
"holds" the other Lutheran symbols of The Book of 
Concord "in high esteem, regards them as a most valu- 
able body of Lutheran belief, . . . and recommends 
that they be diligently studied by our ministers and 
laymen." 

In its Constitution, as adopted in revised form in 
1913, it "recognizes the Apology of the Augsburg 
Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Small Cate- 
chism of Luther, the Large Catechism of Luther and 
the Formula of Concord as expositions of Lutheran 
doctrine of great historical and interpretative value." 

In view of its relation with the General Synod, The 
Lutheran Publication Society, through its Board, 
naturally follows the actions of the General Synod, 
as above cited, by sending out the excellent and schol- 
arly volume of Dr. Fritschel with its imprint. It as- 
suredly may desire and hope that along with other 
valuable historical and doctrinal works that it has 
published, and may yet publish, it may have an honor- 
able share in producing that condition for which all 
Lutherans in America may fervently and fondly pray 
and hope, and to which Prof. Fritschel dedicates 
this work: The Future Lutheran Church of Amer- 
ica, United on the Unaltered Basis of Historic Luth- 



PART I 

The Historical Origin of the Formula of 
Concord 



The Formula of Concord 



CHAPTER I 

A. History of Lutheran Germany After the 
Death of Luther 

i. the status in germany at the time of luther's 

DEATH 

Luther had faithfully done his work; the evangeli- 
cal church had. been established and organized. The 
greater part of Germany had been reformed, 1 and the 
leaven of the gospel was working in the remaining 
parts. 2 The different countries had been organized on 
a Lutheran basis. The children and common people 



1 The rulers were still Catholic in 1546: in the Duchy of 
Bavaria, the Kingdom of Bohemia-Austria-Hungary, in 
Lotharingia, in the Duchy of Cleve-Berg-Juellich. In Braun- 
schweig-Wolfenbuettel the Duke Henry was Catholic, but he 
was a prisoner of Philip of Hessia, and his land was on the 
Lutheran side. All "clerical" or ecclesiastical territories were 
under Catholic rulers, but a part of the population were openly 
or secretly Lutheran. 

2 In Bavaria, Austria, etc., the Palatinate, the Lutheran 
movement was strong. The Saxon bishoprics had been re- 
formed. The Elector of Cologne, old Herman von Wied, 
had embraced the new doctrine (1543), and was trying to 
introduce it against the strenuous endeavors of his chapter; 

15 



16 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

were being thoroughly taught by means of Luther's 
Catechism 1 and popular sermons. In the "Kirchenord- 
nungen" (church constitutions) short statements of 
the Lutheran doctrine had been given and had been 
made obligatory on all pastors; they were directories 
for the public worship and discipline. Almost without 
exception, these (even those composed by Melanch- 
thon) were strictly Lutheran, and were of a greater 
practical influence upon church life than even the 
Augsburg Confession. Other books that were of emi- 
nent influence upon the clergy and the people were the 
German Bible and the Commentary of Luther on the 
Epistle to the Galatians. Books were more diligently 
studied and digested at that time, because they were 
so few. 

The Union with the Swiss. Bucer's efforts to 
bring about a reunion of the Protestant forces (con- 
tinued immediately after Marburg and Augsburg) 
seemed to have healed the breach of 1525-1529 through 
the Wittenberg Concord of 1536. It was accepted 
universally by the German cities in southern Germany. 
Calvin had not yet come to the front. But the Swiss 
leaders finally refused to accept the same. 

The Prospects and Dangers. Everything seemed 
to be promising for the Lutheran Church, which was 
growing stronger both externally and internally. The 
Lutheran parochial schools, colleges and universities 



Franz von Waldeck, bishop of Minden-Muenster-Osnabrueck, 
and other ecclesiastics were ready to do the same as soon as 
possible. 

*Cf. the many editions and great number of explanations 
of Luther's Catechism in Reu, Quellen. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 17 

were developing splendidly. Catholicism had lost all 
political, intellectual and ecclesiastical influence north 
of the Alps. The prospects were that the successor 
to Ferdinand would be a Lutheran prince. 

Dangerous elements were the" policy of the em- 
peror and political rivalries between Lutheran princes ; 
the old rivalry between Brandenburg (which did not 
join the Smalcald League) and Saxony; also bitter 
feeling between the Elector of Saxony and the Duke 
of Saxony, Maurice (who left the League as a result). 

One great question was : Who would succeed Luther 
as the intellectual and moral leader of the Lutherans ? 
Would he be able to steer the ship as successfully 
as Luther ? With Luther's death came the great catas- 
trophe and crisis. 

2. THE SMALCALD WAR AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 

The Past Policy of the Emperor. The election 
of Charles and the beginning of reformation just 
about coincide. At Worms Charles had made his 
decision to remain Catholic under all conditions, 
and to defend the Catholic Church. His policy, before 
1546, may be divided into two periods. From 1520- 
1529 he had disregarded the Lutheran movement — not 
by his own will, but under the constraint of political 
conditions. He had to rely on the Lutheran princes 
and cities of Germany as allies in his wars against 
Francis. The Lutherans had saved him from utter de- 
feat, but he had purchased their help by giving them 
free hand in religious matters. From 1530- 1545 he 
tried to defeat Lutheranism by compromise negotia- 
tions under the strain of passive resistance of the pope. 



18 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

Luther was opposed to the negotiations, whilst Me- 
lanchthon was always open for them. 1 The practical 
result had been the gradual but continuous spread and 
growth of Lutheranism, and the condition of the Cath- 
olic Church in Germany had become extremely critical. 
This induced Charles to change his policy and to re- 
sort to force. For his influence as emperor had also 
dwindled to almost nothing. 

The New Policy of Charles V After 1546. 
Charles now decided to redeem the pledge of Worms : 
"I have therefore resolved to stake upon this cause 
all my dominions, my friends, my body, my blood, my 
life and my soul." He concluded a peace with Francis 
(who was about to engage in a war with England), 
and paid tribute to the Turks in order to throw all his 
resources against the Protestants. These he deceived 
by continuing the colloquies until he would have com- 
pleted his preparations. He made secret treaties, (1) 
with (the Catholic) Duke William of Bavaria (whose 
son was now married to Ferdinand's daughter) that 
he should declare himself neutral, but secretly assist 
Charles (for which service the electoral dignity was 
held out as a possible reward) ; (2) with Joachim II, 
of Brandenburg, that he should likewise remain neu- 
tral; (3) With John of Cuestrin-Brandenburg (angry 
because his father-in-law, Henry of Braunschweig, was 
kept in captivity) and his brother, Albert Achilles, 
both members of the Smalcald League, that they were 
to fight on his side ; (4) with Maurice of Saxony, by 
promising the supervision of the bishoprics of Magde- 



Schmauk, "The Confessional Principle," page 626ft. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD & 

burg and Halberstadt (a dignity desired both by Sax- 
ony and Brandenburg) and the territory (possibly 
also the dignity) of John Frederick; (5) with Erich 
of Goettingen, the son of Henry; (6) with the 
pope. 

Rumors of an impending war did not alarm the 
Lutheran princes, who, at the Diet of Ratisbon, de- 
manded the legal execution of promises made to them 
at the previous diet by Charles (1544). Now the em- 
peror's hands were forced, and he charged Landgrave 
Philip of Hessia and John Frederick, Elector of Sax- 
ony, as insurgents even before his troops from Italy, 
Spain, Hungary and the Netherlands reached him. 
This precipitated the war. 

The Real Plans of the Emperor. The emperor's 
interests were twofold : ( 1 ) He intended to restore the 
religious unity of the empire by force. The Protest- 
ants were to be compelled to attend the Council of 
Trent (convoked in 1545) and to submit to its de- 
cisions; (2) to crush the political power of all princes 
and estates, and make them subject to the emperor's 
directions. For in the previous century their power 
had increased, so that the imperial power was only 
nominal. 

The Imperial Policy Executed. Charles V was 
a master of deception. He pretended that his intention 
was merely to punish Philip and John Frederick for 
acts against the public peace, though these (Pack 
Trouble, Restoration of Duke Ulrich) had long been 
legally settled at previous diets. He most emphati- 
cally proclaimed that the religious question was no 
cause of the war (in order to prevent the Smalcald 



20 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

League from making common cause with the two 
princes). But he did not succeed in deceiving the 
Smalcaldians. They did not believe him, and quickly 
hired troops. They intercepted messengers from the 
pope and found ample proof that the emperor had 
concluded a treaty with the pope 1 and promised to 
root out entirely the "Lutheran heresy." 

The Smalcald War. The Lutheran cities of south- 
ern Germany, especially Ulm, Augsburg and Stras- 
burg, and the Duke Ulrich of Wuertemberg, had hired 
their troops most quickly. They requested Venice and 
the Swiss to refuse passage of the emperor's troops 
already under way from Italy. The Protestant troops 
were commanded by Schaertlin of Burtenbach, an ex- 
cellent general, and were much more numerous than 
the army which Charles had quickly assembled (10,000 
men) and was hiring in southern Germany. Schaert- 
lin outlined the following plan : The various imperial 
troops, being hired and mustered into service at vari- 
ous places, must be scattered by quick moves upon the 
gathering places before they can be organized; the 
Ehrenburg Pass and other passes (commanding the 
roads from Italy) must be occupied; a quick attack 
must be made upon the emperor. A part of these plans 
was executed; Schaertlin occupied the Ehrenburg 
Pass ; the unorganized troops retreated before him into 
"neutral" Bavaria. He was about to follow them up 
and scatter them, when the councilors of the cities 
forbade him to violate the pretended neutrality of 
Bavaria, and ordered him to withdraw all his troops 



See text in Richard, "Philip Melanchthon," page 314L 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 21 

to Guenzburg, where the whole southern force was to 
concentrate. 

Meanwhile Charles had gathered an army of 10,000 
men by bringing in troops held in readiness in Hun- 
gary (3°°° Spaniards) ; he remained within the pro- 
tection of "neutral" Bavaria. Schaertlin now urgently 
recommended a capture of this army by a quick at- 
tack of the much superior army of the League. But 
the cities hesitated. Charles now (July 20, 1546), con- 
trary to all law and contrary to the stipulation of elec- 
tion (Wahlkapitnlation) , placed the two princes and 
every person assisting them under the imperial ban, 
and moved to Ratisbon (August 3). Schaertlin pro- 
posed to attack him here with the Smalcald army of 
about 30,000 men. But the city councils did not permit 
him to act. Charles then intrenched near Landshut, 
and again Schaertlin (now reinforced by 19,000 men 
on foot and 9000 on horse from Hessia and Saxony) 
proposed to attack him here. But the elector, who 
now was commander-in-chief, hesitated, though the 
troops from Italy (12,000 furnished by the pope, and 
6000 Spaniards) were approaching. On August 31 a 
battle really commenced near Ingolstadt, but was 
broken off by the still superior Protestants. Whilst 
they still hesitated to strike the decisive blow and 
turned against an army of 20,000 from the Nether- 
lands (September 4), the latter avoided them and 
joined Charles (September 15). The imperial troops 
were now more numerous than the Protestant. In con- 
sequence of this the Smalcaldians retired before the 
emperor. 

During this time of hesitation Ferdinand had gath- 



22 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

ered Bohemian troops to march into electoral Saxony ; 
but the Bohemians (almost all Lutherans) refused to 
attack a Lutheran country, and Ferdinand had to bring 
in Hungarian troops for this purpose. Already, on 
August i, Charles had appointed Duke Maurice of 
Saxony as executor of the imperial ban, 1 but Maurice 
hesitated until Ferdinand was ready actually to invade 
Saxony (in which case Saxony would have been an- 
nexed to Austria). On October 27 the emperor nom- 
inated Maurice as future elector (thereby offending 
Duke William of Bavaria). In vain both Philip and 
John Frederick appealed to Maurice at this time. He 
offered to mediate. The emperor in his critical condi- 
tion now peremptorily ordered Maurice to seize Sax- 
ony, who now marched into Saxony and occupied it 
(as he stated) in the interest of the house of Saxony, 
not yet assuming the title of "elector." 

This complication so frightened the Smalcald 
Leaguers that they offered peace to the emperor, but 
his condition was unconditional surrender. Philip and 
John Frederick left the allied troops to save their ter- 
ritories. The other troops scattered, and the emperor 
had full control of the south, though the Italian and 
Spanish troops were almost useless in winter time. 
The cities and the Duke Ulrich surrendered, and had 
to pay heavy indemnities. 

The Surrender of John Frederick and Philip. 
In order to save his country Elector John Frederick 
marched against Maurice. He quickly drove him not 

1 Maurice had made sure as to the question of the electorate 
and had demanded a promise in written form (which he re- 
ceived in July). 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 23 

only from the electorate, but also from his own coun- 
try into Bohemia. He compelled the bishop of Magde- 
burg to resign and surrender his territory to him. 
Maurice and Ferdinand (in great danger in Bohemia, 
since the Bohemians were on the side of the Protest- 
ants) now appealed to the emperor, who joined them 
in Bohemia. The elector tried to take Dresden, but 
retreated before the approaching imperialists. He was 
overtaken near Muehlberg (on the Lochauer Haide), 
and was routed and taken prisoner. Wittenberg was 
besieged, and the emperor had John Frederick sen- 
tenced to death, which was again contrary to the law. 1 
In order to save his life, Wittenberg surrendered, and 
peace was concluded. The elector was to surrender 
his title and all possessions ; he was to remain the em- 
peror's prisoner indefinitely. 2 The new elector guar- 
anteed a revenue of 50,000 florins to the family of the 
former elector, and turned over territory in Thuringia 
which would produce that amount. This became the 
Duchy of Saxony, now the Thuringian Saxon States. 
Philip accepted the good services of his son-in-law, 
Maurice, and the Elector of Brandenburg as mediators, 
and in June surrendered unconditionally. 3 After 



1 The death warrant was read to him when playing at chess ; 
after hearing the document he quietly turned to his oppo- 
nent: "Go on," he said, "it is your move." 

2 The intention of the emperor was to retain him so that 
he could restore him at any time to his dignity, possessions 
and title, in case Maurice should cease to be an obedient tool 
of Charles, who referred to the ex-elector as his "captive 
bear," which he might turn loose. 

3 The plenipotentiaries had offered him assurance that he 



24 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

Philip had humbly knelt before the emperor and 
begged for forgiveness, he was retained as captive, 
and was treated in a way which was not appropriate 
to his dignity. All protests and appeals of princes and 
estates were turned down by the emperor. The Ger- 
man princes must learn that now the emperor was 
supreme in reality and not only in name. 

The Campaign in the North. In the north the 
emperor's allies were defeated at Drakenberg on May 
23. But after the absolute surrender of the two great 
leaders, the Lutheran cities dismissed their troops and 
made peace with the emperor. The cause of the Smal- 
cald League was utterly lost. Only one lone city re- 
fused to sue for peace — the city of Magdeburg — it re- 
mained in a state of war against the emperor, even if 
it could do him no harm. But what could one city do ? 

The Emperor's Plans Revealed. The emperor 
had crushed his enemies, and that through their own 
lack of energy and capacity. He now unveiled his 
plans, and plainly stated that one object of the war 
had been to increase the influence of the emperor in 
legislation. No longer should the estates consult sepa- 
rately and block the emperor's plans by non-concur- 
rence. No separate assemblies, either at the diet or 
otherwise, were to be tolerated, no leagues, etc. A 
confederation of the estates with the emperor as a 
member was proposed. The princes did not, how- 



should not be imprisoned. In the written draft of the agree- 
ment, it is said, the words "nit een'xge Lcibesgcfangenschaft" 
had been used; these were secretly changed into the words, 
"nit ewige," by merely connecting the letters "e" with "n." The 
two mediators had offered their persons as guarantee. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 25 

ever, at once agree to these changes of the constitution. 
The second part of Charles's policy was likewise re- 
vealed: the restoration of the unity of the Church; 
in other words, the return of the Protestants to the 
folds of the Roman Catholic organization. This could 
not be reached at once, for the pope had again crossed 
the emperor's plans by removing the council beyond 
the sphere of imperial influence, and by publishing the 
decrees adopted against the Lutheran reforms. The 
emperor was well aware of the difficulty and was satis- 
fied to proceed slowly, step by step the matter should 
be carried forward. The first step was the Augsburg 
Interim. 

3. THE AUGSBURG INTERIM 

The Object of the Interim. Already in March, 
1548, the emperor had privately informed the princes 
of his plans, and demanded that they should obey. The 
pope had become afraid of his now too powerful ally, 
and had published the anti-Lutheran resolutions passed 
at Trent, in 1545- 1547, on the Canon, Tradition, 
Church, Original Sin, Justification and the Sacraments. 
On March 11 he had removed the council to Bologna 
(outside of Germany and the emperor's influence), 
although Charles had protested against both acts. 
Hence the emperor could not compel the Protestants 
to submit to the council and its decrees, which had not 
been discussed with them, or that were to be adopted 
by a council not recognized by the emperor as legal. 
He now proposed a provisory regulation of the state 
of the Church. On May 15, 1548, this Augsburg In- 
terim was published. It was a measure indicating to 



26 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

the pope that the emperor eventually would settle the 
religious question by himself, if the pope was too re- 
fractory. 

The Contents. The Interim had been drafted by 
the coadjutor bishop of Mayence (a Roman of the 
old school), Helding or Sidonius, and was finished in 
company with John Pflug, bishop of Naumburg (a 
Roman of the new school), and John Agricola, the 
court preacher of Brandenburg. Its twenty-six arti- 
cles followed in general the outline of the Augsburg 
Confession: 1-2. Man's condition before and after the 
fall ; 3. The Redemption through Christ ; 4-6. Justifi- 
cation by faith ; 7. Love and good works ; 8. Confidence 
in the forgiveness of sins; 9-12. The Church and the 
priests; 13. The pope and the bishops; 14-21. The 
Seven Sacraments ; 22. Mass ; 2^. Invocation of the 
saints; 24. Memory of the dead; 25. Communion and 
the mass ; 26. Ceremonies and use of the sacraments. 

Its Character. The character of the Augsburg 
Interim is correctly described in the following words 
by the Catholic Encyclopedia (vol. viii, page 77) : 
"The points of doctrine were all explained in the sense 
of the Catholic dogma, but couched in the mildest and 
vaguest terms ; and wherever it was feasible, the form 
and the concept approached the Protestant view of 
those subjects. In matters of ecclesiastical discipline 
two important concessions were made to the Protest- 
ants, viz., the marriage of the clergy and the com- 
munion under both kinds." 

Its Adoption and Publication. On May 15 
Charles had the introduction read to the estates. The 
Catholics were admonished to render due obedience 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 2 7 

to the regulations of the Roman Church. The Protest- 
ants should either return directly to the folds of the 
Catholic Church, or should at least act in accordance 
with the directions of the Interim. The Interim itself 
was not read (except "by title," according to modern 
parliamentary terms). Charles then demanded that 
the estates should at once consult and decide to adopt 
it. Maurice and others loudly complained that this 
was an unheard-of procedure; but as they had prom- 
ised previously they did not protest, but acquiesced. 
Then the Elector of Mayence informed the emperor 
that the princes had accepted the Interim. In this 
way the Interim was rushed through the diet. This 
was a practical sample of the way in which in future 
law was to be passed by the diet under the emperor's 
direction. 

The Reception of the Augsburg Interim. "Noth- 
ing that Charles ever undertook proved such a dismal 
failure as this patchwork creed made from the snippets 
from two Confessions. However lifeless creeds may 
become, they all — real ones — have grown out of the 
living experience of their framers, and have contained 
the very life-blood of their hearts as well as their 
brains. It is a hopeless task to construct creeds as a 
tailor shapes and stitches coats. ... At first the strong 
measures taken by the emperor compelled its nominal 
acceptance by many of the Protestant princes. The 
cities which seemed to be most refractory had their 
councils purged of their democratic members, and 
their Lutheran preachers sent into banishment. . . . 
The city of Constance was besieged, and fell after a 
heroic defence; it was added to the family possessions 



28 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

of the House of Austria. Its pastor, Blaurer, was 
sent into banishment. Four hundred Lutheran divines 
were driven from their homes." 

"If Charles, backed by his Spanish and Italian 
troops, could secure a nominal submission to his 
Interim, he could not coerce the people into accepting 
it. The churches stood empty in Augsburg, in Ulm, 
and in other cities. The people met it by an almost 
universal passive resistance — if singing doggerels in 
mockery of the Interim may be called passive. . . . 
The popular feeling, as is usual in such cases, found 
vent in all manner of satirical songs, pamphlets, and 
even catechisms. . . . Soon the creed and edict which 
enforced it became practically a dead letter through- 
out the greater part of Germany." 1 

The Effect of the Augsburg Interim. In one 
respect this measure thus forced upon southern Ger- 
many did enormous harm to the Lutheran Church. It 
produced hatred and enmity between the Lutherans 
that submitted to it and those who did not. The latter 
looked upon the former as traitors to the cause of 
God's word. It destroyed, or at least undermined, 
mutual confidence for many, many years. 

The Failure of the Emperor's Policy. There 
were three main causes for this failure: i. The op- 
position of the pope. Afraid that Charles would in- 
timidate the council into compromises with the Prot- 
testants, he now opposed the imperial policy by all 
means, open and secret. 2. Ferdinand and the Duke 



1 Lindsay, "The Reformation in Germany," pages 390, 392 
passim. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 29 

of Bavaria. These were estranged by the emperor's 
plans to make his son Philip either his immediate suc- 
cessor, or at least the successor of the successor al- 
ready elected as Roman king, Ferdinand. Duke 
William did not forget his unfulfilled expectations. 
He also opposed the endeavor to reduce the German 
princes to the grade of Spanish grandes. 3. Maurice 
of Saxony. He was offended by the disgrace coming 
upon him through the duplicity of Charles in holding 
Philip in captivity; also by the threat concealed in the 
indefinite arrest of John Frederick. He also smarted 
under the hatred shown by the people. 1 

Maurice and the Augsburg Interim. Charles 
tried his very best to induce Maurice to set a "good 
example of obedience" to the other princes by accept- 
ing the Interim. But Maurice informed the emperor 
that he had promised (with the emperor's knowledge 
and consent) to his estates, when he needed their help 
in the Smalcald war, that he would make no changes 
in state and church without their consent and ap- 
proval. Finally the emperor had to permit him to go 
home and consult on these matters with his estates. 
The emperor urged him to coerce and compel them to 
accept the Augsburg Interim. But Maurice knew that 
this was impossible, even if he had approved the In- 
terim himself, which was not the case. Maurice 
planned to get out of the difficulty by a compromise 
measure in which he would concede nothing in re- 
gard to the doctrine, but in which he would restore 



1 He was called the Judas of Meissen, the Mameluk, the 
Apostate, the Renegade, etc. 



30 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

some of the former church ceremonies and customs. 
In this way he expected to satisfy the emperor until 
he could do (what loomed up as a possibility already 
now) something to break the yoke which the emperor 
intended to lay upon Germany. He knew that his 
theologians would not resist his pressure if he were 
insistent. He made them his pliant tools until he had 
gained from them what he considered necessary to 
satisfy the emperor. This was the Leipzig Interim. 



4. THE REVOLT AGAINST THE EMPEROR AND THE 
RELIGIOUS PEACE 

The Policy of Maurice. Maurice had been 
schooled in politics by Charles V, and he studied his 
master's methods so well that he defeated him by his 
own methods of hypocrisy, secrecy and sudden action. 
In the first place he pretended to do his utmost in 
religious matters by wrenching from his theologians 
the compromise of the Leipzig Interim (see C. R., 
VIII, 259ft), an d later (1552) by ordering his theolo- 
gians to go to the Council of Trent (secretly instruct- 
ing them to await further orders at Nuremberg). In 
the second place, from the year 1549 on he planned a 
revolt against the emperor whose real plans now were 
clear to him ; but he kept these plans secret, even from 
his "evil genius," his intimate advisor, Carlowitz, who 
did not dream of Maurice's real intentions. The siege 
of Magdeburg, which he protracted intentionally as 
long as was necessary (answering any urging on the 
emperor's side by requests for the necessary funds !) to 
conclude his treaties with the Lutheran princes and 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 31 

with Henry of France, the son and successor of 
Francis I. 

The Causes of Maurice's Revolt. These were 
manifold. The treason of 1548 made Maurice, in his 
own subjects' eyes, as well as those of all Germany, the 
"modern Judas, who had sold his party for an elector's 
title," whilst John Frederick was praised as martyr 
of Lutheranism. The indignation increased when he 
produced the Leipzig Interim; now he was considered 
a traitor in matters of faith, though he hardly tried 
to introduce it into his country. The protest of Flacius 
and his .associates against the Leipzig Interim aroused 
public consciousness to such a degree that it drove 
Maurice onward on his way of revolt. The emperor 
kept John Frederick as prisoner so as to have him 
handy (if necessary) against Maurice, if he should 
dare to disobey the imperial demands. Furthermore, 
he had political grievances and charges against the em- 
peror. Charles had again and again broken his impe- 
rial promise (which was only too true) ; he had broken 
his inaugural oath in decreasing the power of the Ger- 
man princes, in keeping two rulers of royal blood in 
shameful captivity (a thing unheard of in Germany 
for three hundred years), in bringing in and keeping 
foreign troops in Germany without the consent of the 
electors. All this was true. Hence Maurice made him- 
self the religious and political champion of Germany 
and placed himself at the head of the national senti- 
ment. 

The Revolt. Charles V, though often warned, did 
not see through the schemes of his pupil in politics, 
but was entirely surprised when Maurice marched his 



32 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

army (which he had kept together over the winter un- 
der the pretence that he could not yet pay them off) 
against the emperor himself. He came in forced 
marches via Leipzig, Naumburg, Weimar, Erfurt, 
Bischofsheim (where the Hessian levies joined him), 
Schweinfurt, Rosenburg (where Albert Achilles came 
to him), and entered Augsburg already on April 5, 
1552, as the champion of Lutheranism, which he at 
once restored in the Interim cities. Charles in vain 
appealed for help to his Catholic partisans. Ferdinand 
had been sorely offended by Charles's plans of suc- 
cession. He did no more than meet Maurice to learn 
his demands. Maurice was quick in his actions; he 
took the Ehrenburg Pass, and arrived at Ingolstadt 
only a few hours after the rheumatic Charles had been 
carried in a litter over mountain by-paths to Villach 
in Carinthia, to which place Ferdinand and the elector 
(previously declared free) had accompanied him. 
Ferdinand now arranged a truce. A convention of 
princes was held at Passau to conclude peace — in re- 
ality only a truce, until the legal forms should be used 
at the next diet. 

The Treaty of Passau (1522) and the Augs- 
burg Religious Peace Treaty (1555). Maurice 
(though not in condition to dictate peace) could not 
gain all his points, and finally had to take all he could 
get (August 2, 1552). The stipulations were: 1. 
Maurice was to disband his army or turn it over to 
Ferdinand to be used against the Turks (he led them 
in person under Ferdinand's command in the same 
fall). 2. Philip of Hessia was to be set free by August 
12, but must promise not to take revenge for his 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 33 

humiliation. 3. The religious question was to be set- 
tled in the future either at some diet or council or 
colloquy. 4. Neither side shall disturb the other. 5. No 
change of Constitution shall take place. A separate 
stipulation contained the declaration that in case the 
religious matter cannot be settled peacefully, the 
present condition is to be permanent. Neither Maurice 
nor the emperor was satisfied with the peace, and laid 
plans for a defeat of the opponent; for the present 
both sides had to be satisfied with what they had 
gained. But the career of Maurice soon ended at 
Sievershausen in March, 1553, where he routed the 
marauding Albert Achilles (who refused to ratify the 
Passau treaty and carried on war on his own responsi- 
bility, thereby endangering the cause of Maurice). 
Maurice here was mortally wounded by a gunshot in 
the abdomen, and died a few days after his decisive 
victory. 

The Religious Peace of Augsburg (which was not 
concluded until 1555, because Charles had to fight 
against Henry II of France, the ally of Maurice) was 
concluded by Ferdinand, and was drawn on the same 
lines as the Passau Treaty. It stipulated: 

1. Catholics and Lutherans stand on equal footing 
in the empire. 

2. The rule for the religious status shall be : Cujus 
regio, ejus religio; i.e., each prince has free hand in 
religious matters in his territory. Provided, however, 
that non-conforming subjects shall be permitted to 
emigrate. In the imperial cities everything shall re- 
main as at present. 

In publishing this agreement Ferdinand added a 



34 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

"rider" — the so-called Reservatum ecclesiasticum: Any 
clerical or ecclesiastical ruler (abbot, bishop or arch- 
bishop at the same time ruler .of a province) must re- 
sign in favor of a Catholic successor if he personally 
becomes a Lutheran. (In other words: No ecclesi- 
astical territory shall be made officially Lutheran or 
secularized). In these territories Lutheran subjects 
must be tolerated. This stipulation, not a part of the 
original treaty and not approved by the Lutherans, 
contained the germs for counter-reformation and for 
the terrible thirty years' war. 

The End of Charles's Reign. Charles's policy had 
failed in every respect. He could not erect an abso- 
lute monarchy in Germany, nor retain the Hapsburg 
possessions undivided, nor subdue the reformation. 
He formally abdicated in Germany in 1555, turned 
over the government of the Netherlands to his only 
son, Philip, in the same year, and that of Spain in 
1556. "It was September, 1556, before he could 
leave for his long-chosen place of retirement in 
Spain, accompanied by his two sisters, the widow of 
the French king and Mary of Hungary. But he did 
not live a monastic life even at Yuste. Messengers 
with political dispatches came to him every day. How- 
ever, he took no active part in affairs. He lived his 
few remaining months on earth amid works of art, 
amid the books which, as a cultured man, he studied 
and took pleasure in, and enjoyed the music which he 
loved, whilst he prepared himself for the life to 
come.") 1 He died September 21, 1558. 



1 Cath. Encycl., II, 629. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 35 

5. THE TIME AFTER CHARLES V. 

The Continued Growth of Lutheranism. In 
1556 Ottheinrich, the third elector, joined the Luth- 
eran ranks, and in Catholic Bavaria as well as in Haps- 
burg possessions and the ecclesiastical territories Luth- 
eranism continued to spread. In vain Ferdinand 
tried to stem the flood. He did not succeed. But he 
called in those who, later on, almost overcame Luther- 
anism, the Spanish priests, or Compania Jesu, better 
known as Jesuits. Maximilian II had been educated 
under evangelical influences, much to the grief of his 
uncle, Charles. Only his fanatic Catholic wife (a 
daughter of Charles V) and political reasons prevented 
him from joining the Lutheran Church. He took great 
interest in the development of the same, and encour- 
aged Jakob Andreae in his endeavors to make an end 
to the doctrinal controversies through a Formula of 
Concord. Under his reign the reformation of Ger- 
many territorially reached its high-water mark. The 
clerical bishoprics which were subject to secular princes 
were secularized and virtually annexed to Branden- 
burg (Havelberg, Brandenburg, Lebus) and Saxony 
(Naumburg, Merseburg, Meissen). In the two arch- 
bishoprics of Magdeburg and Bremen (under the con- 
trol of noblemen through the noble-born members of 
the chapters which filled the vacancies) the Lutherans 
finally had a majority of votes and elected Lutheran 
lay administrators. The same happened in eight bish- 
oprics entitled to a seat in the imperial diet (Halber- 
stadt, Verden, Osnabrueck, Minden, Luebeck, Schwer- 
in, Ratzeburg, Kammin). In order to retain their 
legal standing and political prerogatives, they re- 



36 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

tained the old form of organization, and paid their 
pallium and other fees to Rome. In Maximilian's 
time the Form of Concord was composed. 

In 1570 about seven-tenths of the population of the 
German empire (this did not include Prussia, which 
was outside of the German empire and formed a part 
of the kingdom of Poland) was Lutheran, two-tenths 
belonged to the Reformed Church or to sects, and only 
one-tenth was yet Catholic. But the counter-reforma- 
tion movement (which reached its climax in the thirty 
years' war) was well under way under the direction 
of the Jesuits. Already in 1557 Bavaria had been 
catholicized. 

Under Rudolph II (1576-1612) the Catholic reac- 
tion became threatening. In Austria severe measures 
were used by his brothers. Foremost among these was 
Ferdinand II (afterwards the emperor), who had been 
educated by the Jesuits at Ingolstadt. He had there 
already declared: "I would rather give up land and 
people and go away in nothing but a shirt than sanc- 
tion what might be injurious to religion." Under 
Rudolph the Form of Concord was published. 

Retrospect. Thus we see how the external condi- 
tion had at first been most dangerous immediately after 
Luther's death. The Smalcald War left political 
hatred (between ducal and electoral Saxony) and envy 
(between Saxony and Palatia) in its wake. The Luth- 
eran estates had no common interests, and each one 
took care of dear little self. Through the Peace of 
Augsburg the separation of the provincial churches 
had been sanctioned and permanent peace had been 
guaranteed between Catholicism and Lutheranism. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 37 

Lutheranism had continued to spread. A little cloud 
was appearing on the horizon — the counter-reforma- 
tion policy of the Jesuits. 

This was the historical political background of the 
time in which the Form of Concord was adopted as 
a Lutheran symbol. But in order to understand it 
close attention must be paid to the internal condition 
of Lutheranism. We, therefore, now turn our atten- 
tion to the doctrinal development. This is of eminent 
importance, though it is frequently almost unknown 
even in its general outlines. 



CHAPTER II 
The Doctrinal Development of Lutheranism 

FROM 1 546- 1 576 

6. MELANCHTHON as a leader 
Remark: Schmauk, in his splendid analysis of Melanch- 
thon in his "Confessional Principles," pages 609-636, discusses 
the whole of Melanchthon's qualifications and his weakness. 
We refer to this best discussion of this question known to us. 
In the following we have to point out only those sides of 
Melanchthon's work which left their imprint upon the time 
under discussion, and these are only the dark sides. We 
wish it to be expressly understood that he possessed many 
excellent traits of character and capacities, which we fully 
recognize and appreciate, though we cannot enumerate or 
discuss them here, as they have no connection with our topic. 
For we shall now discuss the failures of the Lutheran Church. 

Schmauk on Melanchthon's Characteristics. 
"Melanchthon was not a man for a crisis, nor for 
theological utterance in the sense of declaring and 
establishing the Faith in public differences. His ex- 
amination, apprehension, estimation, expression, and 
even use of faith, in public affairs, were of the school 
and not of the apostolic order." 1 "So soon as the wel- 
fare of the Church was concerned in any movement, or 
so soon as ties of sympathy and friendship appealed 
to him from an opposite party, Melanchthon was at 
sea, miserable and dejected in his own mind, and filled 

1 Schmauk, "The Conf . Principle," page 613. 
38 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 39 

with some plan to extricate the cause or the man . . . 
by the devices and diplomacy of human reason, rather 
than inspired by the endeavor simply to do the right 
thing, and then leave the final issue to the Lord." 1 

Melanchthon's public grasp of such subject-matter 
even in his free and facile moods, was that of epitome. 
The mind of Melanchthon was assimilative, not crea- 
tive, . . . illuminative, summaristic and naturally ex- 
pressive." 2 "As a teacher of logic, and in theology — 
except as to form of discussion — Melanchthon was 
not germinal, but reflexive and practical, without an 
inner and constant principle of unfolding." 3 

Schmauk on Melanchthon's Weakness. His 
weakness is described thus : 1. He lacked the faith of 
Luther. 2. His faith was not firm and great. 3. His 
faith was not firm because his reason was busy and 
halting in a mystery which it never would solve. 4. He 
was instinctively willing to enter into compromise, on 
account of his great timidity, or cowardice. 5. His 
most prominent characteristic is his desire for union, 
now with the Catholic Church and then with the Re- 
formed. 6. His diplomacy was a total failure in every 
case. 7. His dreadful fear and trembling, and his lack 
of trust and confidence, in the crisis of the Church 
through which it passed, worked havoc. 4 

The Practical Results of Melanchthon's 
Policy. The practical attainments of the Melanchtho- 
nian principles for the Church after Luther's death 
may be summed up in this one sentence : It had its 



1 Same, page 615. 3 Same, page 621. 

2 Same, page 617. * Same, pages 627-635. 



40 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

trial, and, after a generation, brought the Church to 
the verge of shipwreck. 

7. melanchthon's unionistic endeavors 
Instances of His Innate Propensity to Yield. 
Whenever Melanchthon was called upon to represent 
the Church and to act as its spokesman, we find that 
he enters into negotiations of compromise and union- 
ism. Thus at Augsburg. In the Augsburg Confes- 
sion he gave voice to the doctrine of Luther; but 
when the Romanists opposed him, his whole work was 
to strike the best possible bargain, so as to retain as 
much as possible. 1 He had previously done the same 
thing towards Erasmus, and he did the same thing in 
the Leipzig Interim, in the Eucharist Controversy, in 
the Frankfurt Recess. The same tendency showed 
itself over against the Reformed theologians. Whilst 
his negotiations with the Romanists were total fail- 
ures (since the Romanists would not accept a com- 
promise), his advances were accepted by Calvin in the 
expectation of receiving more later on, and used 
against the Lutheran Church. 

The doctrinal history between 1546- 1576 is in reality 
a history of Melanchthonian concessions and the neces- 
sary reaction against his twofold endeavors to reach 



1 His negotiations at Augsburg became so scandalous that 
Luther was called upon to interfere and bring him to reason, 
lest he would betray the Lutheran side for a few flimsy and 
non-essential concessions. It was then that Luther wrote 
those letters to and about Melanchthon which Flacius pub- 
lished in the time when the Leipzig Interim was under con- 
struction. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 41 

a union by compromising the Church of the Reforma- 
tion. 

8. MELANCHTHON AND ROMANISM 

i. The Augsburg and Leipzig Interims 

Remark: Compromise is a barter. A price is set and a 
lower price is offered until a bargain is struck. The Augs- 
burg Interim was the offer of Charles V; the Leipzig Interim 
was Melanchthon's final counter offer. 

The Intention of Charles V. As a good Cath- 
olic, Charles had the medieval idea of the relation of 
state and church. This idea deduces all power from 
above; all power of the state has been given by God 
to the emperor (either directly, as the imperialists 
claimed, or indirectly through the pope as the curial- 
ists claimed) ; all power of the Church has been given 
by God to the pope (either directly, as the curialists 
claimed, or through the bishops, as the episcopalists 
claimed). As there can be but one empire, so there 
can be but one church within the empire. This me- 
dieval idea is the principle underlying the policy of 
Charles. In trying to restore the unity of the Church 
the emperor sought to safeguard his own interests as 
much as those of the Church. 

In forcing the Augsburg Interim upon his subjects, 
his intention was to restore the Catholic Church grad- 
ually, as had been done through the Compact of Basle. 
His intention is plainly revealed in the introduction. 
The Protestants are admonished either to return at 
once and completely to the Catholic Church, or at 
least they must accept this temporary arrangement. 



4 2 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

The Catholics must hold fast to what they have and 
make no concessions. But what afterwards? A coun- 
cil, in which the Lutherans should be represented, 
might grant exceptional privileges (as had been done 
at Basle to the Hussites). But if it did not, the 
Protestants must submit to the inevitable. 

As stated above, most princes accepted the Interim. 
The "born elector," John Frederick, absolutely refused, 
even when he might have purchased his freedom and 
other concessions by doing so. Philip of Hessia ac- 
cepted it in the hopes of being set free. Very many 
accepted and tried to safeguard the interests of Luth- 
eranism by new provisions, e.g., Wuertemberg, where 
Lutheran preachers were appointed "catechists" or 
"predicants." In other countries other interpretations 
were put upon the regulations, as f. i., that the use of 
meat on Friday was forbidden on account of high 
prices. In Lower Saxony the Interim was either ig- 
nored or absolutely rejected. Charles could tolerate 
a merely nominal adoption, since it was merely a ques- 
tion of time, anyway, when the permanent status 
should be determined by the council. Hence the inter- 
imistic policy of the emperor failed only in so far as 
large territories refused obedience. There can be no 
doubt that Charles was laying his plans in respect to 
these matters at the very time when his pupil defeated 
him by his own methods. 

The Intention of Maurice. Maurice would have 
submitted only too gladly to the emperor. He stood 
at that time too much under the evil influence of Carlo- 
witz, an old enemy of Luther. And, besides, he had 
just received his new dignity, and was reminded by 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 43 

the emperor of his grace. He had not yet received 
more which had been promised (Magdeburg and Hal- 
berstadt). If he refused, and thereby shattered the 
emperor's plans, Charles might restore the former 
elector to his former dignity, whose subjects would 
welcome the beloved martyr with triumph. It was es- 
sential that the largest landholder in the empire, now 
the most powerful prince, should give a good example 
to all. But Maurice had (with the emperor's knowl- 
edge and consent) assured his subjects that before any 
changes were to be made they would be consulted 
and heard. In vain did therefore Charles instruct 
Maurice to use the same means that he was applying — 
lenient compulsion. As soon as he saw from the 
opinion of Melanchthon that it was absolutely impos- 
sible to force the Augsburg Interim upon his Church, 
he busied himself with a compromise measure. This 
fitted splendidly into the new, secret plans which he 
now conceived. He needed no more than an "In- 
terim," a temporary arrangement until his chance 
would come; then the Interim would be overthrown. 
The Leipzig Interim a Compromise. It was in 
these negotiations that Melanchthon made Carlowitz 
his confessor, and revealed his innermost secret — his 
love of bargaining, his weakness for compromise, his 
cowardice in the hour of danger. When the adviser 
of the new elector knew this secret of the leader of 
Lutheranism, he knew exactly how to handle him. 
He merely had to offer a much lower price and con- 
tinue to barter until he had reached his end. Maurice's 
estimate of Romanism was also correct; it lays more 
stress upon the outward forms than upon doctrine. 



44 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

Hence he planned a compromise which would retain 
what the Lutherans placed above everything, namely, 
the doctrine which could be clothed in ambiguous form 
to please the Romanists, and yet contained what they 
demanded — concessions in regard to organization and 
church forms. And the theologians? At first they 
permitted themselves to be made tools to compose such 
a compromise measure, and then, after they had con- 
cocted what they knew to be a partial denial, they 
promised not to protest, but remain silent when it 
was forced upon the Church by a dictate of the ruler. 
Their acts were on a line with the officers who would 
see a breach in the fortifications and would promise 
to remain silent in regard to the danger imminent at 
that place. 

2. The Opposition to the Interims — Was It Justified? 
The Augsburg Interim and the Opposition to 
It. As usual, Melanchthon's first impulses were the 
correct ones, coming before his thoughts and actions 
were influenced by fears and bargaining propensities. 
When Maurice submitted the Interim to him, he at 
once replied (C. R., VI, page 839, No. 4189) and 
summed up his impression in the words: "To conclude, 
for these reasons, I will not encumber my conscience 
with this book" (April 1, 1548). And two weeks 
later (page 854, No. 4201) : "I am surprised that they 
glory that this agreement is an admission concerning 
faith as it is understood in our churches by the pious 
and learned, since the form of this article is funda- 
mentally in contradiction to this concept, though the 
deception is very fine; it can be recognized neverthe- 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 45 

less." He points out a series of errors in the articles. 
In private letters he was more outspoken than in his 
"opinions" (which might be presented to the em- 
peror) .* But the principle according to which he acted 
was : "Save as much as you can !" Hence he advised 
Maurice and the estates: If they could not possibly 
induce the emperor to grant them the privilege of 
leaving everything just as it was in Saxony, they should 
meet him half way (as Maurice suggested), and save 
the doctrine by conceding accommodation in organi- 
zation and church forms. This was exactly what 
Maurice desired; now he could shield himself by the 
name of the great leader. 

In southern Germany Charles succeeded in forcing 
the Interim upon the Lutheran princes and cities. 
Everybody looked to Melanchthon, the leader. 

j. Melanchthon and the Augsburg Interim 

Appeals to Melanchthon. While the negotiations 
concerning the Augsburg Interim were going on, Me- 
lanchthon made no secret among friends that he con- 
demned it. The emperor, who had read also his 
self-prostitution before Carlowitz, scared Melanch- 
thon, whose cowardice he knew right well, by demand- 
ing, or at least suggesting to Maurice, that he should 



1 "And we should not burden ourselves by the gravest blas- 
phemies, which are the denial of the recognized truth" (April 
24, letter No. 4213 in C. R.). "If I should give judgment 
upon my own danger and in my place, I would say simply and 
in the Socratic method, that I should not assent to these 
sophisms." (Letter No. 4216, page 878 (cf., also Nos. 4230, 
4233, 4250, 4257, 4264, 4274; Vol. VII, Nos. 4308, 4319, 4321.) 



46 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

turn this "arch-heretic" over to him. Melanchthon 
did not dare to publish anything against the Interim. 
From all sides appeals came to him. Casp. Aquila 
wrote: "Thou holy man, reply and breath, defend the 
word and name of Christ and His glory, which is 
the highest possession on earth, from that virulent 
sycophant (Agricola). 1 And Brenz, himself an exile 
on account of his steadfastness, wrote to him : "You 
think, perhaps, that the Interimists will tolerate the 
true doctrine if we accept all their ceremonies to do 
them. But do you not know that it is plainly com- 
manded in the beginning of the Interim that no one 
shall speak or write against this book?" 2 And when 
he had already been ensnared by the crafty politicians, 
Corvinus, the leader of Braunschweig-Calenberg, ad- 
dressed him, pleading: "Oh, my Philip, oh, I say, our 
Philip, return through the immortal Christ to the 
former candor, to the former sincerity, to the con- 
stancy! Do not make the minds of our people lan- 
guish by your fright and half-heartedness! . . . You 
must not be the author of such immense offences with- 
in the Church ! Do not permit your so excellent writ- 
ings, words, acts, by which you have done so wonder- 
fully much for the Church and schools, to be turned 
in such a way through that fault of disregard, inno- 
vation, moderation ! Think how much courage your 
plans give on the one hand, to the opposite, and, on 
the other hand, rob our side ! We pray that, mindful 
of your profession, you and your Wittenberg men 



1 C. R. VII, July 22, 1548, No. 4302. 
2 C. R. VII, No. 4452. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 47 

would conduct yourselves as you did conduct your- 
selves in the beginning of this matter, that is, that you 
would think, speak, write, do those things which 
become Philip, the Christian teacher, not the court 
philosopher." 1 

The Opposition to the Leipzig Interim. There 
was at least one man among the Wittenberg theologi- 
ans who decisively warned Melanchthon. It is true, 
he was a young man; he had only twenty-eight years 
over against Melanchthon's fifty-one. He had not yet 
published a single book ; he had taken his philosophic 
degree only four years before, and his theological just 
a few months. He was a favorite and intimate pupil 
of the Preceptor. He was not implicated in the snares, 
since he was an obscure professor of Hebrew. This 
was Matthias Flacius. But he saw through the schemes 
by which Melanchthon was being throttled. He tried 
to open his teacher's eyes. He spoke to Melanchthon ; 
he begged him on his knees to make an end of all 
schemes by one energetic "No!" He put his argu- 
ments into writing and presented them. But in vain! 
This was between July and November, 1548. But the 
"Leader" had lost courage, and would not sound the 
alarm. Then Flacius, into whose hands some of 
Melanchthon's "opinions" had come, considered it his 
duty to speak for the master. He published these 
documents anonymously to the world in July, 1548. 
What a scare this must have been for Luther's suc- 
cessor when he saw his "opinions" in print. Flacius 



1 Tschakert, "Entstehung der luth. und ref. Kirchenlehre," 
page 506. 



48 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

also published his own arguments under three pseudo- 
nyms against the endeavors to produce a compromise 
formula. Of course, the author could not remain hid- 
den; he betrayed himself through his incessant en- 
deavors in the faculty by his slogan, "No concessions." 
He was no longer safe at Wittenberg, so he resigned, 
and found a home in the city of refuge, Magdeburg, 
about Easter, 1549. From there he issued one pam- 
phlet after another, and from there he led the attacks 
upon both Interims. If the eyes of the people were 
opened, if the public opinion was aroused, if the pres- 
sure of public opinion began to be felt in politics, if 
Maurice was compelled to shape his course accord- 
ingly, so that he now fully decided to head the Luth- 
eran party and undo the damage he had done — then 
this is due in a large measure to Flacius, the self- 
constituted leader in a time when the official leaders 
became weak and hopeless. 

4. Who Was the True Representative of Lutheranism 
— Melanchthon or Flacius? 
How Must We Consider the Controversy? We 
cannot enter here into the details of the adiaphoristic 
controversy. 1 But there can be no doubt that in regard 
to principle Flacius was right and Melanchthon wrong. 
This is the concurrent opinion of all Lutheran histo- 
rians, and also of most others. Frank says : "Before 
all it had been the merit of Flacius (though not with- 
out excessive polemics) to have opposed the conces- 



1 For these details see Preger, Matthias Flacius und seine 
Zeit, the best monograph extant on this question. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 49 

sions of the Melanchthonian side and to have assisted 
the Church clearly to understand this question before 
it." 1 

Calvin to Melanchthon. "Now when he has 
drawn us into the battle-grounds, we must oppose our- 
selves so much more manfully. Your condition is 
another one than that of many; for it is more dis- 
graceful for the leaders or standard-bearers to trem- 
ble than for the mass of soldiers to flee." 

9. MELANCHTHON AND CALVINISM 

The Condition of Affairs. To understand the 
position of Melanchthon and Philippism in general, we 
must keep in mind the great difference between the 
Swiss and Luther. We can find the interpretation of 
Melanchthon's actions only in his innate propensity 
to compromise in order to have peace. The lack of 
confessional appreciation shows itself as much here 
as in the Interim matters. The difference is : In the 
Interim the concessions were made on account of 
fear of what might possibly come; and here they 
were made so as to retain the friendship and 
alliance of Calvin and his party. Also here the 
endeavor of Melanchthon is to strike the best pos- 
sible bargain. Also here the former position of 
the Preceptor is the right one, which he is willing 
to barter away. Luther had proclaimed his doc- 
trine; Melanchthon had been his mouthpiece. Carl- 
stadt and Zwingli had opposed a fundamentally dif- 
ferent doctrine of salvation, the full significance of 



Frank, "Die Theologie der Concordienformel," iv, page 3. 



50 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

which is much clearer to us than it could possibly be 
at that time. Luther had never wavered, but always 
had the word of God before his eyes, and because the 
doctrine was that of his Lord and God, "he stood there 
and could not do otherwise." If Luther was great at 
Worms in the face of his enemies, he was also great 
at Marburg in the face of his "friends." His uncon- 
ditional allegiance to the words of his God is the key 
to understand his actions in both instances. For him 
everything was settled by the clear word. 

Then came the time when Luther was taken from 
the battlefield of the Church and when Melanchthon 
was the leader. He would not surrender uncondition- 
ally to Zwingli. But if the Swiss met him half-way, 
he was willing to meet them likewise. The matter was 
for him a doctrine of the Church. In Calvin such con- 
cessions were made to Lutheranism. Melanchthon now 
tried to find and coin such terms and phrases as would 
be acceptable to both sides, without surrender from 
either side. If the Interims were coats made from 
the snippets of Romanism and Lutheranism, then the 
eucharist articles of Melanchthon were made from the 
snippets of Reformed and Lutheran books. They 
were called "Polish boots" at that time, because Polish 
boots could be pulled on either foot. 

Did Melanchthon Become a Calvinist? This 
claim has been made. It is not true. Melanchthon 
had a double soul (Seeberg) — a public one and a pri- 
vate one. If we trust the repeated statements of Me- 
lanchthon as to his relation to Luther, we cannot but 
admit that he was on the side of Luther to the end. 
He contended, however, not for the facts (as Luther), 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 51 

but for the phrases. He himself states, as late as 
1556: "I have never changed the doctrine of the Con- 
fession," 1 and also, 1557: "Concerning the eucharist 
we retain the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession 
and Apology." 2 In the Cos wig negotiations he ex- 
pressed his adherence to the Smalcald Articles, and he 
knew right well what words Luther had there used 
concerning the eucharist. 

Frank and Schmid on this Question. "It may- 
be stated confidently that Melanchthon never, neither 
in his earlier nor in his later time, arrived at a fully 
clear and lasting certainty in the understanding of 
the dogma of the eucharist." 

The Peculiarities of Melanchthonianism. As 
Melanchthon, impelled by the dread of coming ruin, 
had tried to meet the Romanists half-way, so he tried 
to meet the "friends" half-way in the eucharist ques- 
tion. This might be done, in his judgment, if the op- 
position to the Romanist doctrine of transubstantiation 
and what was connected with it was emphasized on 
both sides; if the empty doctrine of Zwingli was re- 
jected; if the sacramental character of the institution 
was emphasized; if the practical use was made pre- 
eminent, and, finally, if wide and ambiguous terms 
were adopted which might be used for two (though 
diametrically opposed) doctrines. In other words, no 
confession should be made concerning the distinctive 
doctrine. 

The Peculiarities of the Philippists. The Phil- 
ippists started from the position of their teacher, but 



C. R. VIII, page 841. 2 C. R. IX, page 371. 



52 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

they went beyond him. More and more they aban- 
doned the doctrine which Luther had confessed. 
Whilst Melanchthon desired to extend the hand of fel- 
lowship across the dividing line, they knowingly and 
willingly went one step further — stepped beyond the 
dividing line. When they considered their position, 
they found themselves where? — among the Calvinists. 
Some may have deceived themselves. The leaders 
knew that they were no longer Lutherans, but Calvin- 
ists. Their moral and legal crime was not that they 
held the conviction of Calvin, but that they pretended 
again and again to be Lutherans, when they knew 
perfectly well that they were Calvinists. The "Exe- 
gesis Perspicua" and their own admissions to Peucer 
convict them. 

IO. THE PRACTICAL RESULTS OF MELANCHTHON's 
POLICY 

The Consequences. The consequences were most 
disastrous: I. Melanchthon's policy caused division 
for a long time. Melanchthon and Brenz were the 
two men considered as leaders at the time of Luther's 
death. The former proved himself incapable of leader- 
ship. He lost courage in time of danger; he acted as 
he had acted in 1530 at Augsburg — in a cowardly way. 
By leading into the Interim (passively and actively) a 
great number of the Lutherans, there would in future 
be at least three factions — the former Augsburg In- 
terimists, the former Leipzig Interimists, and the stead- 
fast ones who had rejected both. All of them would 
suspect and mistrust one another. 2. This inner dis- 
harmony inevitably produced a spirit of suspicion. It 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 53 

was but human that the steadfast theologians did not 
put the "most charitable construction" on the acts 
and words of Melanchthon, especially after he had 
intentionally used ambiguous phrases in the Leipzig 
Interim. And Melanchthon paid them in the same 
coin. This spirit of suspicion received new nourish- 
ment in the compromise endeavors over against Cal- 
vin. 3. The suspicions produced wrangling with 
words. Ambiguous words were used without inten- 
tion ; these were criticised by the other side. Then they 
were defended in a false sense not originally connected 
with them and produced new differences. 4. The or- 
thodox side drove the Philippist side deeper into errors 
through their lack of true Christian love and charity. 
This is so often the case. How much blood shall be 
charged to those who are right and defend the truth, 
God only knows. 5. A bitter and spiteful tone devel- 
oped. It is customary to point out this fault on the 
side of Flacius; it was there. But it was present in 
no less degree on the other side. The documents con- 
vict one side as well as the other. 6. These internal 
struggles weakened the Lutheran side and wasted 
valuable lives. To give just one example : If Flacius 
even in his exile produced works which have won the 
unqualified admiration of modern scholars, as his 
Centuriones, his Clavis and his Glossa, how much 
could be done if his talents had been conservated and 
applied constructively. 1 7. These struggles also weak- 



1 Catholic Encycl. in, 534: "His wanderings after 1562, and 
the numerous domestic controversies in which Flacius took 
part until his death (March 11, 1575) did not prevent him 



54 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

ened the strength of the Church and opened the way 
as well for the Roman counter-reformation as for the 
Calvinistic conquest of Lutheran countries. The ef- 
fect of the thirty years' war within the Lutheran 
Church (1548-1576) can be compared only to the civil 
deluge seventy years later. 



from becoming the most learned Lutheran theologian of his 
day." 



CHAPTER III 

The Different Parties 

ii. the extremes 

i. What Did Flacius Defend? It has been pointed 
out of late (Seeberg, Loofs) that Melanchthon had 
taught the Flacianists that purity of doctrine consists 
in the retention of the doctrine as formulated by or- 
thodox teachers. Flacius in the Interim controversy 
defended a principle and not a scholastic phrase. But 
in this controversy already he was turning to be such 
a traditionalist. More so in the other controversies 
that grew from it. More and more the slogan became : 
"The pure Lutheran doctrine." 1 A dogmatistic spirit 
developed which laid more stress upon confessional 
purity than Scriptural correctness. Later on the lead- 
ers established, imitating the example of Melanchthon, 
their own pet phrases, for which they fought with the 
greatest zeal. 2 The fanatical spirit which developed 
blinded them to the importance of deepening and in- 
creasing insight into evangelical truths. This became 
more prominent with the associates and followers of 
Flacius than with the leaders of the extremists. 



l A new edition of Luther's works was published at Jena, 
because the Wittenberg edition was claimed to be corrupted. 

2 E.g., Original sin is man's nature; sin is the substance 
of man; man is like a trunk; man is converted against his 
will. 

55 



56 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

2. In What Respect Did Flacius Err? As the 
school of Melanchthon fought for the scholastic 
phrases of Melanchthon, so Flacius fought for certain 
phrases of Luther. Luther's words became not a tes- 
timony of the great witness, endowed by God with ex- 
ceptional gifts, and qualified as few in the history of 
the Church, but as those of a prophet whose words 
are true and infallible in themselves. By developing 
the phraseological theology (Phrasentheologie) , indi- 
vidual opinions and factors were snatched from their 
connection and an emphasis was laid upon dismem- 
bered articles, which Luther would have denounced 
without qualification. This drove Flacius into his idio- 
syncrasies, which finally brought ruin to his party and 
drove more considerate men from the ranks of the ex- 
tremists. 

3. What Did Melanchthon Stand For? Me- 
lanchthon more than once testified that he did not 
differ from Flacius. He admitted that in the Interim 
controversy Flacius had been right, and that he had 
been wrong. In the Majoristic controversy he openly 
(privately with still more emphasis) rejected the 
phrases of his associates. In the Flacian controversy 
on sin, and at least in part in the synergistic contro- 
versy he refused to denounce Flacius as a heretic ; he 
rejected the phraseology of his opponent, not the sub- 
stance (cf. Colloquy of Worms). But he tried also 
here to compromise instead of deciding and judging. 
By doing this he did most harm to his friends. The 
error of his compromise policy can be clearly seen, if 
we ask: What would Melanchthon have done in the 
age of Paul? Would he have made a compromise 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 57 

with the Judaists? What would he have done in the 
age of Irenaeus? of Athanasius? of Augustine? If 
we must compromise with opposing tendencies, what 
will be our position against "modern criticism"? 
Ritschlianism ? Russellism? any ism? 

4. What Did the Philippists Defend ? (a) They 
defended the scholastic phrases of the Preceptor. And 
in doing so they frequently did not catch his exact 
meaning and developed errors that he had not taught. 1 
(b) They represented his policy of compromise in 
relation to the Calvinists. They used phrases which 
might be understood correctly. They tried to cover 
up the existing differences. When attacked on ac- 
count of these phrases, they defended them, and more 
and more adopted the Calvinistic doctrine. And in 
the end those countries where they were received as 
innocent martyrs of Philippism, through their influ- 
ence were taken over into the Calvinistic side. For 



1 An example : He had used the definition : Conversion con- 
sists of contrition and faith. He had later changed his defi- 
nition: Conversion consists of contrition, faith and good 
works. And in the period which we are discussing (speak- 
ing of what we would call "the new life"), he had used the 
phrase : three factors concur in "conversion." His pupils 
took the latter phrase and applied it to the former definition, 
and in this way produced an entirely new doctrine (syner- 
gism). Another instance: Melanchthon had used the term 
"gospel" as a synecdoche (mentioning the most important 
part to designate the whole, e.g., sail for ship, roof for house, 
nose for individual, head for cattle), meaning "the word of 
God." His pupils did not understand him, but clung to his 
phraseology and interpreted it as the gospel in the restricted 
sense, or "the blessed message." 



58 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

they induced the princes through their untruthful 
claims to follow them. 

12. THE MIDDLE PARTY 

i. The Outsiders. Not all theologians of that 
time were either Flacianists or Philippists. Not a few 
parts of the Lutheran Church were not even touched 
by these controversies. Some were so far removed 
from the seat of conflict that they heard little of the 
noise it produced, and hence took no sides. This was 
the case with the Scandinavian countries — Sweden, 
Norway and Denmark. The same may be said of 
Prussia and Pomerania, where the Philippistic Corpus 
Misnicum was adopted as symbolical book, but was 
supplemented by Lutheran declarations. 

2. The Swabians. Others refused to take sides 
and remained neutral. This was the case in southern 
Germany, where Brenz was and remained the stead- 
fast leader. He had been the intimate friend of 
Luther and Melanchthon. He did not compromise 
in the time of the Interim, but spoke bitter truths (not 
about, but) to Melanchthon. He did not compromise 
in the eucharist controversy, but came out with a clear 
and explicit confession. Still he remained a friend of 
Melanchthon. He also condemned the fanaticism 
of Flacius. He was no synergist, and so did not ap- 
prove of the phrases of Melanchthon. 

3. The Lutheran Melanchthonians. Then 
there were others who had studied under Luther and 
Melanchthon, and therefore tried to retain the com- 
mon teaching of both, without the craze for scholas- 
tic phrases and the hankering after compromise. These 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 59 

were Lutheran Melanchthonians, "who took the more 
charitable views, put the best construction upon them, 
and were reluctant to abandon one to whom the 
Church owed so much, and whom Luther had loved 
so dearly." 1 Such were many Lower Saxons and 
many in Saxony; such were, above all, Chemnitz 
and Chytraeus, pupils of Melanchthon, but sound to 
the core in the Lutheran doctrine. And there were 
not a few who either had been Flacianists or had been 
confused by Philippistic vagueness, who left the ex- 
treme parties and joined these Luthero-Melanchtho- 
nians. 

4. The Common People. The controversialists 
were mostly the scholars and theologians. It is true 
that the common people were in a measure drawn into 
them by hearing the matter discussed from the pulpit 
and by reading some of the many pamphlets ; but they 
rarely took an active part in the troubles. They had 
to suffer the consequences. 

Why Did This Party Oppose Flacius? 

There can be no doubt that as to doctrine they 
sided with Flacius, and were in sympathy with him 
more than with his opponents. They disapproved of 
the policy of Melanchthon in reference to the Interims. 
But they also disapproved of several features found in 
the Flacian party, namely: 

1. The spiteful hatred and the tone which gradu- 
ally was developed by the opponents of the Preceptor. 
2. The way in which they tried to humiliate their ad- 



Krauth, "Conservative Reformation," page 291. 



60 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

versaries by denouncing each error by the name of 
the author. 3. The hyperbolic phrases of Flacius and 
others. 4. The one-sidedness of Flacianism and its 
extreme factional character. 



In What Did They Stand for Luther? 

1. They taught with Luther that the doctrine is not 
the product of the Church or teachers, but that it is 
the revelation of God. 

2. Doctrine is a matter, in the first place, of the 
Church, and not of the individual teacher. 

3. The doctrine is to be taken directly from the 
Scriptures, no matter whether the ancient Church 
knew and approved of it or not. 

4. Higher than tradition (Lutheran or ancient) is 
the exegetical proof. (Hence we find the best ex- 
egetes among these middle men.) 

5. They make a distinction between fundamental 
and non-fundamental doctrines. 

6. They distinguish between faith and dogmatics ; 
between the creed and its scientific presentation. 

7. They continued the work of original investiga- 
tions in the Scriptures. 

8. They oppose all compromises, where the least 
part of the doctrine is to be sacrificed for the sake of 
peace. 

9. They oppose all ambiguous or indistinct formulas 
by which contradictory statements are to be harmo- 
nized. 

In all this they act in the spirit of Luther, and thus 
represent the truly Lutheran element of the Church. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 61 

In What Did They Stand for Melanchthon? 
i. They recognized and appreciated the great gifts 
of Melanchthon, without overlooking his weakness. 

2. They admitted that for ecclesiastical use the doc- 
trine of the Church must be formulated and con- 
structed scientifically. 

3. This construction must emphasize the historic 
continuity, except where we recognize errors in former 
teachers. 

4. The correct definitions are of prime importance 
for the system of the doctrine, and should be both as 
plain and as detailed as possible. 

What was the Result of Their Work? 
They combined the great characteristics of both 
teachers. With Luther they emphasized the material, 
and based their faith and their theology absolutely on 
the word of God; with Melanchthon they endeavored 
to construe and develop it as well as they could. Imi- 
tating Luther, they quarried deeper in the divine quar- 
ries opened by him; imitating Melanchthon they pol- 
ished and fitted the treasures discovered into their 
respective places of the dogmatical system. With 
Luther they demanded absolute agreement in the ex- 
plicit doctrines of salvation as the one bond uniting 
the Christians ; with Melanchthon they tried to unite 
all that held these truths by means of the best possible 
definitions and presentations. With Luther they laid 
the one and indestructible foundation, upon which 
with Melanchthon they continued to build, being very 
careful to choose only the precious stones in the con- 
struction of the Lutheran system. 



62 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

The grandest and most permanent record of their 
work is the Formula of Concord, in which they pre- 
sented their work, and thus saved the Lutheran Church 
from schisms. They thereby prepared the way for 
future theological labors on the old basis. The For- 
mula of Concord presents to us one of the three forms 
of conclusion of doctrinal development of the Chris- 
tian Church since the days of the apostles. It presents 
especially the ripe fruit of the soteriological controver- 
sies. 1 In Luther we have the reaction against the errors 
of medieval Augustinianism, and the Formula of Con- 
cord presents the results in a scientific delineation. 

Calvin, on the other hand, retained some of the 
philosophic, speculative errors of Augustine, and de- 
veloped them into a system. Through the compromise 
endeavors of Philippism the former symbolical decla- 
rations were endangered. This called forth the re- 
action of Lutheranism, and found its final culmina- 
tion in the Formula. In this way this document saved 
the genuine Lutheran Church. "Hopeless division, 
anarchy and absorption were the perils from which the 
Form of Concord saved our Church. The loss of Ger- 
many would have been the loss of Lutheranism 
throughout the world, and with it of Protestantism 
itself." 2 "It established the Confession (Augustana) 

1 Augustine defended the soteriology of the Bible. But, in- 
fluenced by philosophical thought and method, he did not 
succeed in eliminating all errors from his doctrine. His errors 
were emphasized by his interpreter for the Middle Ages, 
Gregory the Great. In the scholastic theology of the middle 
ages these were then constructed into a doctrinal system 
which was more or less semi-Pelagian. 

2 Krauth, "Cons. Ref.," page 328. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 6 3 

and Apology forever as the Confession of the Church 
as a whole." "The war of the Formula was fought 
for great principles; it was bravely and uncompro- 
misingly fought, but it was fought magnanimously 
under the old banner of the cross. It was crowned 
with victory, and that victory brought peace." 1 

13. THE CONTROVERSIES 2 

i. The Interimistic or AdiaphoRistic Contro- 
versy. The most important features of this contro- 
versy have been related above in No. 8. Melanchthon 
had been frightened into consenting unto a compromise 
Interim, by which the Lutheran doctrine in a most 
indefinite form had been retained, but Roman cere- 
monies had been reintroduced and made obligatory. 
The pretence was that these matters were non-essential. 
Flacius attacked the position of Melanchthon, and 
claimed that under the conditions of the time these 
non-essentials became confessional tokens; a conces- 
sion to the Romanists, therefore, was a practical denial 
of Lutheranism. On his side stood almost the whole 
Lutheran world; only Saxony and Brandenburg de- 
fended the policy of Melanchthon. With the revolt 
of Maurice and the Augsburg Peace, the Interim itself 
became a dead issue. But the controversy concerning 
the question, whether concessions might be made to 
enemies of the gospel in regard to ceremonies, etc., 



1 Same, page 327. 

2 Only the general outlines are given here. Particulars can 
be found in the introductions to the respective articles. A 
detailed statement here would lead us too far away from our 
subject. 



64 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

without previous doctrinal unity, raged on. (For 
details see also Article ,10, Introduction.) 

2. The Osiandristic Controversy. This contro- 
versy broke out when Andreas Osiander, banished 
from Nurnberg because of refusing to accept the 
Augsburg Interim, proposed a new doctrine of justifi- 
cation. He taught that through faith Christ, the per- 
sonified righteousness of God, makes habitation in the 
heart of man. This righteousness, on the one hand, 
overshadows all sin, and, on the other hand, impels 
the believer to good works. This is justification. Duke 
Albert of Prussia, who had called Osiander as chief 
professor and superintendent to Koenigsberg, inter- 
viewed the leading theologians (especially Melanch- 
thon, Flacius and Brenz). The first rejected the doc- 
trine of Osiander; the second likewise; the last saw 
little difference from Luther's doctrine. Stancarus, 
an opponent of Osiander, claimed that only the human 
righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer. 
(For details see Article 3.) 

3. The Majoristic Controversy. Amsdorf at- 
tacked the declaration of the Leipzig Interim, that good 
works are necessary unto salvation. Major became the 
champion of this phrase. Melanchthon rejected the 
sentence, but defended the assertion that good works 
are necessary. Amsdorf attacked his associate Menius 
for the same assertion, and formulated the parodox 
sentence : "Good works are detrimental to salvation." 
(For particulars see Article 4.) 

4. The Antinomistic Controversies. John Agri- 
cola (afterwards the associate author of the Augsburg 
Interim) had attacked the statement of Melanchthon 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 65 

(1527, and again 1537) that the law is necessary for 
conversion. Luther took issue with him and compelled 
him to recant. As a sequel to the Majoristic contro- 
versy some of the Gnesio-Lutherans denied that the 
law is binding upon the Christian. Some of the Phil- 
ippists claimed that not the law, but the gospel, works 
contrition (mistaking the phraseology of Melanch- 
thon). (For particulars see Articles 5 and 6.) 

5. The Synergistic Controversy. Pfeffinger and 
Victorin Strigel (misunderstanding Melanchthon's as- 
sertion : "Three causes concur in conversion") claimed 
that man co-operates in conversion, and denied the 
total depravity of human nature. (See particulars in 
Article 2.) 

6. The Flacian Controversy. In refuting the 
synergistic assertion of Strigel, Flacius claimed that 
the substance of man has become sin. This phrase was 
opposed not only by the synergists, but also by the 
Gnesio-Lutherans. (See particulars in Article 1.) 

7. The Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy. After 
his death the pupils of Melanchthon continued the 
unionistic policy of their teacher, and incline more and 
more to the Calvinistic doctrine concerning the eucha- 
rist and Christology. They tried to veil their views 
by indefinite phrases and advocated union with the 
Calvinists. They endeavored gradually to win over 
August to their side. They were opposed by the Luth- 
erans outside of Saxony. Their schemes finally were 
unmasked, and they were banished. (See introduction 
to Articles 7 and 8.) 



CHAPTER IV 

Endeavors for Unification 

14. endeavors to settle the matter between 
flacius and melanchthon 

i. The Peacemakers. "The controversies, dis- 
tractions and alienations described . . . created a feel- 
ing of sadness in the hearts of all true disciples of 
Luther and Melanchthon. Even the princes, not a 
few of whom cared more for themselves than for the 
Church, lamented the situation. By the close of the 
sixties and the beginning of the seventies the feeling 
prevailed widely that efforts should be made to re- 
store concord. Fortunately there were theologians 
who had little or no association with the rivalries and 
quarrels of the Saxons, such as Duke Julius of Bruns- 
wick, Duke Christopher of Wuertemberg, Landgrave 
William of Hesse-Cassel, and Count George Ernest of 
Henneberg." (Richard, page 400.) 

2. The Method. The exponents of the two ex- 
treme parties were Flacius and Melanchthon. Back 
of their controversies were also petty political rival- 
ries between Saxony, Palatia and ducal Saxony. Also 
personal enmity, injured pride, etc., was not missing. 
Melanchthon was largely influenced by the younger 
generation, which utilized his fame to cover their un- 
Lutheran tendencies. Different methods were pro- 
posed to make peace. A general synod was proposed, 
66 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 6 7 

especially by Flacius, who at that time was the cham- 
pion of a free Church and the supremacy of the Chris- 
tian congregations; he stood for ecclesiastical democ- 
racy. But such a plan was abominable to the autocratic 
rulers. Melanchthon was absolutely opposed to this 
plan, and would not take the risk of having a synod 
pass upon his constructions. It was also evident that 
the party which would lose out would not submit. No 
such general synod had ever been held. The idea also 
contradicted the principle established by the Peace of 
Augsburg that the rulers, ex officio, were to be the 
representatives of the territorial Church. Another 
way possible was that an understanding would be 
reached in private between the leaders of the two par- 
ties. This way was tried first in different ways. 

i. By Duke Christopher and Elector Frederick 
A diet was to be held in March, 1556, at Ratisbon. 
Lutheran harmony was desirable in order to have the 
"Reservatum Ecclesiasticum" expunged. It was prob- 
able that the Romanist party would demand either a 
council or a colloquy. Duke Christopher consulted 
with Elector Frederick of the Palatinate (the father- 
in-law of John Frederick, duke of Saxony), and in 
June, 1556, sent an embassy to Weimar to discuss 
political issues and propose an agreement with the 
electoral Saxons. The embassy consulted with Ams- 
dorf, Stoltz, Erhard Schnepf and Victorin Strigel. 
The conditions laid down by these were as follows : 
A general confession is not sufficient, but the Zwing- 
lians (this includes the Calvinists) were to be con- 
demned by name; the Majoristic error must be con- 



68 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 



demned as corrupting the doctrine of justification ; the 
new error of man's co-operation in conversion must 
be renounced. In regard to the adiaphoristic contro- 
versy they might demand that the opponents should 
publicly confess that they had erred, but they were 
willing to recede from such demand, if the promise 
was made that no concessions would be made in future 
to the Anti-Christ, but that he would be opposed in 
every way. The past injuries should be forgiven 
by the Saxons. The Augsburg Confession and the 
Smalcald Articles should henceforth be considered the 
common basis. A synod of theologians co-operating 
with the rulers might pass upon the past controversies. 
The embassy from Wuertemberg saw in these con- 
ditions a demand for unconditional surrender of the 
Philippists. They knew well enough that this demand 
would be considered an open insult and that the Phil- 
ippists would never think of entering upon any nego- 
tiations under these conditions. They therefore re- 
turned to Swabia without approaching the Witten- 
bergers. They were conscious that the well meant un- 
dertaking had utterly failed. 

2. By Flacius Himself 
Not all the friends of Flacius and Melanchthon 
were fanatical. Some deplored that these two great 
and gifted men, equipped by nature as leaders, did not 
agree. There were some who had confidence in Me- 
lanchthon as well as in Flacius, whose talents began 
to show themselves in planning the stupendous work 
afterwards completed, the Magdeburg Centuries. 
When, in May, 1556, the Frenchman, Hubert Languet, 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 69 

who was a boarder and friend of Melanchthon, came 
to Magdeburg, the superintendent of the schools, Gott- 
schalk Praetorius, took him to Flacius, and they dis- 
cussed the question whether peace could possibly be re- 
stored in some way. There seems to have been the gen- 
eral impression that if these two men could have a 
heart-to-heart talk they would soon agree. 1 Praetorius 
wrote to Melanchthon, informing him under what con- 
ditions Flacius was ready to make peace. But Me- 
lanchthon did not reply. 

Flacius himself then forwarded a set of formulated 
proposals to Paul Eber (son-in-law of Major), pro- 
fessor of philosophy at Wittenberg, "Linde Vorsch- 
laege" (lenient propositions). These propositions are 
a platform of Flacianism (Preger II, 9-1 1) : 

1. A written statement, composed under the direction of 
both parties, is to be drawn up. 

2. In regard to the controversy concerning the adiaphora 
we agree in the following points : 

3. We recognize and confess that the pope is the true Anti- 
Christ, and we will denounce and condemn him as such. 

4. We adhere unanimously to the Augsburg Confession as 
a certain, short synopsis of the difference between the Luth- 
eran and Reformed doctrine. 

5. We agree in condemning the Council of Trent and the 
Augsburg Interim, and whatever is in accordance with it and 
belongs to it. 

6. We confess that no agreement in religion can be made 
with the Papists. 

7. Though in the past an attempt had been made with 
good intentions to bring about a union in religion and cere- 
monies, yet we desire that in future no one of our side should 



1 Which probably was not far from the truth. 



70 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

undertake to make an agreement respecting doctrine or 
ceremonies contrary to the Augsburg Confession and the 
Smalcald Articles, unless they desist from persecuting, and 
accept and openly confess the pure doctrine of the gospel 
summed up in the Augsburg Confession. 

8. We declare that it is not proper for the civil government 
to make any changes in good and tolerable ceremonies with- 
out the knowledge and consent of the churches; much less 
that they have the right to ameliorate or accommodate these 
according to the demands of the persecutors for the sake 
of temporal peace. 

9 We condemn and reject unanimously the double-tongued 
and doubtful and offensive phrase: "opera sunt necessana ad 
saint cm." For howsoever interpreted, it remains a thorn in 
the hearts of the poor sinners, and can also be utilized by the 
Romanists against us. 

io We condemn the error of the Zwinglians concerning 
the eucharist, and of the Anabaptists, which is renewed and 
secretly introduced at present. 

11 Wherever an error 1 should creep in (as was the case 
with the error of Osiander and Schwenkfeld), we will oppose 
the same unanimously in our writings and sermons, in public 
and private from the very beginning. 

12 Whenever, in public or private, persons holding harm- 
ful errors against religion and the welfare of conscience 
should arise and spread, we shall not recognize them as 
brethren, nor receive them into fellowship until they have 
condemned and revoked their error ; for such wounds of the 
Church cannot be healed or tolerated in silence. 

13 All intelligent, pious, earnest people must understand 
that it is necessary to act otherwise in matters of faith than 
in civil affairs, where amnesty is conceded, i.e., errors are 
passed over in silence. 

Flacius requested Paul Eber to propose any changes 
which might be desired. But he received not even an 
answer. In a pamphlet published soon afterwards by 
the "scholastics" of Wittenberg these endeavors look- 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 71 

ing toward peace were ridiculed. A cartoon showed 
a donkey wearing a dirty crown, because he had 
scared away the Titans (fighting against the gods) by 
his braying. 1 

Some time later (July 12) Flacius again assured 
Languet that he was willing to meet Melanchthon per- 
sonally for a discussion. But Melanchthon refused 
emphatically to meet him (July 15). The reason was 
this : The Duke of Mecklenburg had asked Chytraeus 
whether anything could be done to restore peace, and 
had received the reply : "As long as Flacius and Me- 
lanchthon are alive no unity will be restored." Gossip 
had reported this word to Melanchthon in the form: 
"In order to make peace Melanchthon should' be re- 
moved." And Melanchthon really was afraid of as- 
sassination at the hands of Flacius ! He wrote : "Nemo 
meorum amicorum vult interesse colloquio, et judi- 
cant mihi non tutum solum cum eo colloqui." (No 
one of my friends is willing to attend a colloquy, and 
they are of the opinion that it is not safe for me to 
meet him alone for a colloquy.) 

Flacius was sorely grieved at this behavior of Me- 
lanchthon against his well-meant advances. He con- 
sidered it his duty to show to the public what interests 
he represented; hence he published a book (composed 
prior to these negotiations, but withheld Until now), 
"Von der Einigkeit" (Of Unity). In this pamphlet 
he defends himself against the charges that his motive 
was ambition; he outlined his idea that peace could 



1 I.e., Flacius had scared the Romanists by his attacks on 
the Interims. 



72 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

be restored only as proposed in his "Linde Vor- 
schlaege." 

Mutual friends, however, did not yet despair. Fabri- 
cius of Meissen requested Flacius (August 24) to 
make another endeavor. This induced Flacius to ad- 
dress Melanchthon directly in a letter (September 1). 
And Melanchthon replied September 5 (C. R., VIII, 
839-843) in a letter which is highly significant. He 
relates how he and his associates were driven by the 
politicians into the concessions made in the Leipzig 
Interim. He continues : "Doctrinam confessionis nun- 
quam mutavi. Ego etiam de ritibus his mediis minus 
pugnavi, quia jam antea in plerisque ecclesiis harum 
regionum retenti erant. Postea vos contradicere coe- 
pistis. Ces'si; nihil pugnavi. Ajax apud Homerum 
proelians cum Hectore contentus est, cum cedit Hector, 
et fatetur, ipsum victorem esse. Vos finem nullum 
facitis criminandi. Quis hoc hostis facit, ut cedentes et 
arma abjicientis feriat? V incite! Cedo; nihil pugno 
de ritibus illis, et maxime opto, ut dulcis sit ecclesiarum 
concordia. Fateor hac in re a me peccatum esse, et a 
Deo veniam peto, quod non procul fugi insidiosas illas 
deliberationes. Sed ilia quae mihi falso a te et a Gallo 
objicitur, refutabo. Et haec de mediis ritibus jam 
tibi scribenda esse, duxi, quia in epistula tua de his 
praecipua pars est." 1 

He then discusses the declaration of Major, and in- 
forms Flacius that he has induced Major not only to 
explain what he meant, but also to use it no more. He 
only insists that good works must be done, because 



See translation in Richard : "Melanchthon," page 367. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 73 

God demands them. He is sure that there is no differ- 
ence between him and Flacius in this article. He is 
willing to negotiate with Flacius through others. He 
desires unity in confession, and requests that Flacius 
should not stir up more trouble by calumnies. He 
(Melanchthon) had not known about the cartoons 
and scurrilous poems against Flacius. He defended 
himself for having written the Confessio Repetita, 
in which he points out some great improvements over 
the Augsburg Confession. 

Melanchthon may have supposed that Flacius would 
now cease his attacks, after he had so unreservedly 
admitted his part in the Interim as wrong. Flacius 
was not to be pacified by such a private admission, but 
replied : "It may have been sufficient for Ajax, who 
fought for his own glory and that of others that his 
proud opponent gave way before him in the presence 
of both armies. But for me, who do not seek glory 
or triumph, but only the continuation of truth and the 
destruction of error — for me and my conscience the 
retreat is not sufficient, couched and hidden in a few 
words, when at the same time the threat is added of 
new writings, and it does not remove an error, which 
has been defended violently." But Flacius is willing 
to submit the matter to arbiters. An agreement on the 
basis of explicit articles would, however, be preferable. 
No one demands that Melanchthon should condemn 
himself or confess that he had erred. But a joint 
statement of the truth would suffice. If the previous 
proposition did not satisfy Melanchthon, he might pro- 
pose more suitable ones. 

There is very little doubt that Melanchthon and 



74 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

Flacius might have agreed, and would have agreed, if 
they had been the only parties. They were on the 
very best way towards an agreement. But on the side 
of Melanchthon his very friends were his greatest 
enemies. In this case the words came true: "God 
save me from my friends; I will take care of my 
enemies." These friends now again became active, 
and roused suspicions against Flacius. One of these 
who slandered Flacius most maliciously was Lan- 
guet, who spread reports concerning the church his- 
tory of Flacius and alleged depredations by Flacius. 
Hence Melanchthon received this epistle of Flacius, but 
did not send any answer. So the well-meant endeavors 
of Flacius looking towards peace came to naught. 

j. The Lower Saxon Mediation at Coswig 
The advances made by Flacius had been in vain. At 
the time of this failure Flacius corresponded with the 
leaders of the Lutheran Church in Lower Saxony con- 
cerning a joint declaration against Schwenkfeld. He 
now asked them to mediate between himself and Me- 
lanchthon. He submitted to them propositions almost 
identical with his "Linde Vorschlaege." The Saxons 
accepted the offer, and laid it before their city gov- 
ernments and were authorized and instructed to visit 
both parties in person and bring about an agreement. 
From each of the four cities (Hamburg, Luebeck, 
Lueneberg and Braunschweig) the superintendent and 
a minister were delegated. These mediators were 
such prominent men as Moerlin and Martin Chem- 
nitz, from Braunschweig; Henning and Wippermann, 
from Lueneberg; Curtius and Schumann, from Lue- 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 75 

beck ; von Eitzen and Westphal, from Hamburg. They 
met January 14, 1557, at Braunschweig, and discussed 
the matter. They drew up a series of propositions on 
the basis of those from Flacius. Traveling via Magde- 
burg, they discussed the matter informally with Fla- 
cius. They requested him to go to Coswig, so that 
they might easily reach him to report the replies of 
Melanchthon. In regard to the differences, they no 
doubt stood on the side of Flacius. 

They hurried to Wittenberg, lest rumors of their 
coming should precede them and spoil everything. 
About three o'clock Moerlin and Chemnitz called on 
Melanchthon, who received these old friends most 
cordially and arranged a formal meeting for the next 
morning at six o'clock. At that meeting the media- 
tors presented their credentials, and (Moerlin acting 
as spokesman) reviewed the lamentable disharmony 
between such prominent men as Melanchthon and 
Flacius. They offered their good services as medi- 
ators between the two sides. Melanchthon thanked 
them for these good services, and declared his will- 
ingness to submit his case to the judgment of the 
Church. But he could not miss the chance of de- 
nouncing Flacius. He had kept silent, he said, for the 
sake of peace, but Flacius and Gallus had insulted him, 
and had aroused the common people and princes 
against him. He refused to receive the propositions 
of Flacius, since they contained falsehoods and un- 
necessary material; but if they would compose any, 
he would receive them. He suggested as the best 
solution that statements covering the whole of the 
Lutheran doctrine should be compiled, lest Flacius 



76 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

start controversies about new articles. He also put 
his reply into writing. This ended this session. 

The next day the delegation presented eight articles 
which they had drawn up, since Melanchthon refused 
to entertain those of Flacius : 

1. The basis of the agreement shall be, the Augsburg Con- 
fession, Apology and Smalcald Articles. 

2. All errors of the Papists, Interimists, Anabaptists and 
Sacramentarians are to be rejected. 

3. In regard to the doctrine of justification all corruptions 
should be removed, especially the corruption concerning the 
necessity of good works unto salvation. 

4. The Saxons uphold their confession in the Interimistic 
controversy. 

5. No agreement is to be made with the Papists, unless 
an agreement has first been reached in regard to pure doc- 
trine. 

6. In persecutions a public and sincere confession must be 
rendered, and no servitude is permitted which is contrary to 
Christian liberty. 

7. We request the honored Preceptor to declare his opinion 
in regard to the adiaphora and the necessity of good works 
and that he agrees with the confession of the Church. Such 
statement is to be printed. 

8. In case he suspects errors on the other side (Flacius), 
a statement should be elicited. 

When these propositions were presented Melanch- 
thon received them most ungraciously. He became so 
greatly excited that the delegates feared for the health 
of the old man. He scolded them as if they had con- 
spired with Flacius in order to ensnare him by craft. 
The delegates had to call in Paul Eber, who finally 
succeeded in calming him. He promised that he would 
answer the proposal in writing, which he did the next 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 77 

day (January 22). He declared that for thirty years 
he had done his work faithfully, and now they had 
come to crucify him. They had laid before him not a 
summary of all doctrines, but merely of the points 
of controversy by which they tried to force him and 
others to cut their own throats. They spared Flacius, 
and permitted him to attack Melanchthon without 
mercy. In regard to the articles, he was willing to 
accept Nos. 1 and 2 (suggesting the addition of Serve- 
tus, Thammer, Antinomians, Schwenkfeld and Osian- 
der). In No. 3 he objected to the first statement, as 
if it implied that he and his associates had corrupted 
the article of justification; but he agreed to reject the 
proposition of Major. For the sake of peace he was 
willing to accept Nos. 4, 5 and 6, even if he thereby 
hit himself. But he refused to publish any statement 
as demanded in No. 7. What he had taught concern- 
ing these two points could be easily seen from his 
many writings. 

Meanwhile the leaders of the Flacian party assem- 
bled at Coswig; they were afraid that the mediators 
might deal too mildly with Melanchthon. Their anx- 
iety increased as the days passed without any report 
from Wittenberg. On Saturday, January 23, Moerlin, 
Henning and Westphal came to Coswig to report con- 
cerning the mediation — rather concerning their failure. 
Moerlin requested them to disregard the harsh words 
into which Melanchthon had clothed his reply, and 
to show on their side a truly Christian spirit. He re- 
ported that since their presence and intentions had 
become known at Wittenberg, public opinion had been 
at fever heat; some students had even threatened to 



78 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

stone them. The Flacianists consulted, and met them 
again on Sunday afternoon. Wigand was their speaker. 
He said that they were surprised that Melanchthon 
was so stubborn and would not concede the least error, 
when he had so frankly confessed his sin in his letter 
to Flacius. For this reason they considered it neces- 
sary to admonish the erring ones so much more em- 
phatically. "The dogs must bark, so that the ox, 
quietly recumbent and asleep, must finally awake." 
He handed two sealed letters for transmissal to Me- 
lanchthon, of which one specified the errors in the arti- 
cle of justification, and the other their reasons why 
they were not satisfied with the eight propositions of 
the mediators ; they desired to make them more specific. 
Besides they handed over a list of adiaphoristic cor- 
ruptions and a selection of offensive quotations from 
Major's homilies. Flacius was even more severe; he 
saw that the opponents refused to confess their sins 
and hardened themselves in these sins. Therefore he 
must insist upon a written declaration to be signed 
by both parties and published by them in which the 
Leipzig Interim should be named as false. The cor- 
rect position should be explained and emphasized. 
Furthermore, the Wittenberg theologians must be ad- 
monished to repent and to avoid such great sins in 
future. 

In Wittenberg matters had become worse. A cer- 
tain John Curio preached for Bugenhagen. He spoke 
of "Illyricus, the cheater and rascal" (Schalk und 
Bube), and had even attacked the mediators by name 
from the pulpit. This was done in the presence of 
Melanchthon. A pasquille— probably composed by 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 79 

Paul Eber — was circulated, in which a good deal of 
mud-slinging was applied against Flacius and his emis- 
saries. Major was violent, and tried his utmost to 
bring these endeavors of peace to naught: Melanch- 
thon was not the representative of Wittenberg; this 
matter should be taken from his hands and turned 
over to the theological faculty. 

Under these conditions the whole delegation (ex- 
cept Chemnitz) returned to Coswig on January 25, 
in order to induce the Flacianists to modify their de- 
mands. If not, they would go home. Finally the 
Magdeburg party gave in with ill concealed chagrin, 
as the only point refused by Melanchthon was a public 
statement. Negotiations with Melanchthon were con- 
tinued. He answered, January 27: "You know that 
these thirty years there was a great confusion of opin- 
ions and that it was difficult to find the correct thing 
in each case. And many hypocrites were and are op- 
posed to me for this reason. I was also ensnared in 
crafty schemes of politicians. In case that I did 
err in any matters or have been too lenient in any 
affair, I pray to God to forgive me, and I will take my 
sentence from the Church. I likewise desire nothing 
more in this life than that the whole of the Christian 
doctrine should be discussed by pious and learned men 
in mildness and without passion, so that the doctrine 
of the Church may be transmitted in a developed form 
to posterity without ambiguity." But since the de- 
mands of Flacius concerned also others besides him he 
could not act or do anything. 

In this way he refused to continue any further 
efforts. Peucer, the son-in-law of Melanchthon, in an 



80 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

insulting way, requested the delegates to let the old 
man alone. And what was the result of the well- 
meant endeavor to mediate which had been provoked 
by Melanchthon's own declaration that the matter 
might be settled most easily in this way? Both sides 
now were embittered. There can be no doubt that 
the friends and associates of the Preceptor (the com- 
ing Philippist party), by suspicions and underhanded 
methods prevented an adjustment of the differ- 
ences, though the Magdeburg party is not without guilt 
by prescribing what amounted to a public confession 
of having erred. They might have left such a declara- 
tion and the form to the conscience of Melanchthon. 

4. John Albert of Mecklenburg 
Flacius had appealed not only to the Lower Saxons, 
but also to the Duke of Mecklenburg. The duke had 
admonished both sides, Melanchthon as well as Flacius, 
to end their controversy and to come to an agreement. 
Both had replied that they were willing for their part. 
Melanchthon even suggested that the duke should for- 
mulate a platform for such agreement. This the duke 
had done while the Coswig negotiations were under 
way. His counsellors and theologians had composed 
propositions for this purpose. 

Four weeks after the failure of the Lower Saxons, 
George Venetus (professor at Rostock) and the coun- 
cilor, Andreas Mylius, laid these propositions before 
Melanchthon. He became as violent as he had been 
the other time, and absolutely refused to enter into 
any consultation on the matter. He stated that they 
simply requested him to strangle himself. These prop- 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 8 1 

ositions are reprinted in C. R., IX, 9 iff. They are 
much more severe than either the propositions of 
Flacius or those of the Coswig mediators. 

Flacius at that time stated : "As long as Melanch- 
thon is under the influence of his Wittenberg friends, 
there is no hope." And this was true. For when the 
former papal legate, Paolo Vergerio (now a Luth- 
eran), a little later tried to discuss the question of 
adiaphora with him, he cut short with the reply: "Let. 
us drop this matter and talk of something else." 

15. THE ENDEAVORS OF THE PRINCES TO UNITE ALL 

PARTIES 
The Colloquy at Worms. The Peace of Augsburg had 
stipulated that both religions (the Lutheran and the Roman) 
should be equally recognized within the empire unless a union 
were reached at a diet, colloquy or a council. Ferdinand did 
not yet abandon all hopes. Hence a colloquy was held at 
Worms by twelve theologians from each side from August 
24 to October 1, 1557. But here the Romans (especially the 
Jesuit Canisius) demanded to know whether Osiander, Major, 
Flacius and others were to be considered adherents of the 
Augsburg Confession. By this scheme they divided the 
ranks of the Lutherans. The Gnesio-Lutheran minority de- 
manded an immediate agreement and a plain rejection of the 
recent errors; the majority desired to present an unbroken 
front to the Romans and to settle these differences (as they 
now conceded) at a synod to be held in the near future. 
The four Flacianists then handed a statement of their position 
to the Romanist chairman (Pflug), and withdrew from 
further consultation. The Romanists refused to continue the 
colloquy with the majority, since these no longer represented 
the whole Lutheran Church. The division of the Lutherans 
in these official negotiations published the fact that there 
were great differences to the whole world. The Romanists 
did their very best to exaggerate this fact and to make it 



82 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

universally known. This induced the Lutheran princes to 
try their hand in healing the breach. They did so through 
two assemblies, the Frankfurt Recess (1558) and the Naum- 
burg assembly of princes (1561). 

/. The Frankfurt Recess 
In March, 1558, at the formal proclamation of 
Ferdinand, as German emperor, six Lutheran princes* 
discussed the lamentable confusion among the theolo- 
gians. Two "opinions" were presented — one by Brenz 2 
and one by Melanchthon. 3 An agreement based 
upon the memorial of the Preceptor was composed. 
It is known as the Frankfurt Recess. 

THE FRANKFURT RECESS 
The princes, considering the lamentable disharmony, declare 
that they adhere to the Augsburg Confession. Since the re- 
cent colloquy of Worms the Romanists have spread the re- 
port that all kinds of heresies are disseminated among the 
Lutherans. Hence the princes desire to publish a statement 
concerning these rumors, not as a new symbol, but as a 
declaration concerning these controversies. 

1. Concerning Justification. Faith trusts in the mercy 
of God promised for the sake of Christ. Through this faith 
man is justified before God, i.e., is considered just, has for- 
giveness and Christ's righteousness is considered as his. After 
this God makes His habitation in man and good works follow. 
But the righteousness of their works is only incipient and 
connected with much weakness within us. Therefore we 



1 The three electors : Ottheinrich of the Palatinate, August 
of Saxony and Joachim of Brandenburg, and Duke Christoph 
of Wuertemberg, Wolfgang of Zweibruecken and Philip of 
Hessia. 

2 C. R., IX, page 365*?. 
3 C. R., IX, page 365. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 83 

place the righteousness only in faith and in no way in the 
newness of life. 

2. Concerning Good Works. New obedience is necessary, 
but this must be understood correctly (Necessitas debiti). 
Man must do what God commands, because God demands 
such works. "Necessary" is not compulsory. "Good works" 
does not mean merely the external acts, but the new light, in- 
tention underlying such works (Necessitas causae et effectus). 
These works are the necessary effect of the Holy Spirit re- 
ceived in conversion. Hence many good works follow after 
conversion. Paul himself used the expression, therefore it 
must not be condemned. But we must not trust in them. The 
phrase, "Good works are necessary unto salvation," should 
not be used, as it might be construed as if they were a merit, 
and would thus conflict with the doctrine of justification. 

3. Concerning the Eucharist. Nothing can be a sacra- 
ment without divine institution. Hence the idolatrous prac- 
tice connected with the mass (adoration, carrying around 
the bread, etc.) must be condemned. We teach, as declared 
in the Augsburg Confession : In this institution Christ is truly, 
livingly, essentially present with the bread and wine; we 
Christians receive them to testify that we are His members. 
Hence there are two gifts — the celestial and the terrestrial. 
With the latter, body and blood are given. The participation 
is for the purpose of applying the Son of God and His 
promise. We reject the doctrine that the sacrament is 
merely an external symbol and confession of Christians. 

4. Concerning the Adiaphora. Wherever the pure doc- 
trine is held, these may be retained. Where the pure doctrine 
is not held or is persecuted, not only these but all ceremonies 
are detrimental. Among the Lutheran estates none shall 
attack the other on account of different customs. 

It was furthermore agreed that any future contro- 
versies should be discussed in Christian and fraternal 
love and meekness. No deviation from the confes- 
sions and this declaration was to be tolerated by any 



84 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

ruler, and the consistories were to instruct all pastors 
to act according to these resolutions. In order to pre- 
vent any continuation of the past controversies or the 
outbreak of new ones, it was stipulated that no theo- 
logical or controversial books should be published un- 
censored. Heterodox teachers should be deposed, 
and such disciplinary acts should be recognized by 
each and every prince and estate. 

In order to make these resolutions adopted by the 
few rulers present effective, all other princes and 
estates were asked to become parties of this agreement. 
Above all, arrangements were made to induce John 
Frederick of ducal Saxony to accept these measures. 
But the Frankfurt Recess only raised a storm of indig- 
nation. The doctrinal statement was considered to 
be too indefinite considering the condition of affairs. 
The instruction referring to strict censorship was con- 
sidered an insult and was violently denounced. The 
supervision of the ministers was declared likewise to 
be an insinuation, as if they were to be dictated to as to 
what they should preach. John Frederick most em- 
phatically refused to sign the Recess. He even tried 
to bring about a counter move by requesting all oppo- 
nents to meet at Magdeburg and formulate a specific 
condemnation of all recent "sects." The Flacianists 
at once attacked the Frankfurt Recess, and Melanch- 
thon had to write a reply to their pamphlets. John 
Frederick (since the plan to hold a meeting at Magde- 
burg was not accepted by others) went to work and 
composed the "Weimar Konfutationsbuch" (1558 and 
1559), in which all recent heresies, and, above all, 
those of the Philippists, were enumerated and con- 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 85 

demned. All professors and pastors in his country- 
were asked to approve it. The pupils of Melanchthon, 
on the other hand, issued their confession of faith, the 
first "Corpus Doctrines" composed entirely of Me- 
lanchthonian writings (1559). 

The princes had meant well. But their first trial 
in settling the controversies by means of ambiguous 
phraseology was a total failure. Matters became only 
worse and the lines were drawn even more strictly. 
Both sides now became more bitter in their literary 
issues and their pulpit eloquence. 

2. The Naumburg Assembly of Princes. 

The Worms colloquy had published the disharmony 
of the Lutherans among themselves to the whole 
world. The Frankfurt Recess had endeavored to heal 
the breach ; the great majority of Lutheran princes 
had signed it, but a strong (though small) minority 
had emphatically rejected it. This shows that not 
only theologians but also princes were grouped on 
both sides. The extremists of the opponents of the 
Recess, the Flacianists in the dukedom of Saxony, 
had issued the Weimar Confutation as their manifesto 
over against the Philippistic "Corpus Doctrina" 

How could this scandalous division within one and 
the same Church be brought to an end? Many, most 
emphatically the Flacianists, demanded a "general 
council" of the Lutheran Church — a "Pan-Lutheran 
Convention," according to modern ideas. At such a 
synod the different parties should be heard, and their 
differences should be settled according to the old 
Lutheran standards. Or, at the very least, repre- 



8 6 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

sentatives of all Lutheran countries should meet for 
this purpose. But no one was more opposed to such 
a convention than Melanchthon, as may be well under- 
stood by those who know his characteristics. Neither 
would Elector August listen to such a proposition. 
Even Brenz was afraid of such a synod, since the ex- 
perience of the past proved that after all such confer- 
ences bitterness had increased. But something should 
be done. Therefore Christian of Wuertemberg sug- 
gested (March, 1559) a new assembly 1 of all Luth- 
eran estates, not only a few, as at Frankfurt. August 
at first declined to assist in calling such a synod of 
estates. But Christoph succeeded in winning as well 
the Flacian leader, John Frederick, as also his father- 
in-law, the leader of the Crypto-Calvinists, Frederick 
of Palatia. Then also August lent a helping hand. 

The plan was laid to settle the matter without the 
theologians. In the invitations to all larger Lutheran 
communities (August, 1560) it was proposed to con- 
sult about a new subscription to the Augsburg Con- 
fession of 1530. No condemnations should be con- 
sidered, and no political questions were to be dis- 
cussed and passed. 

An exceedingly large number of princes was 
present, either in person or by proxy (their lawyers). 
Twenty-one sessions were held between January 23 
and February 8, 1561. The following order of busi- 
ness was adopted: 1. All editions of the Augsburg 
Confession were to be compared, in order to find what 



1 Richard and Schmauk call it a "diet," but it merely was 
an assembly of Lutherans. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 8 7 

differences really existed in these and to decide which 
edition should be signed. 2. A preface was to be 
composed explaining the reason for doing so. 3. In- 
formation should be sent to the emperor as to the 
meaning of this convention (lest he should suspect 
political intrigues). 4. Consultation as to whether the 
absent estates should sign and in what manner. 

At the first point a divergence showed itself : Fred- 
erick of Palatia, who was the great speaker at this 
assembly, proposed that the edition of the Augsburg 
Confession printed in 1540 should be signed, since it 
was the latest revision of the author, and hence the 
best. This motion was seconded by August (notwith- 
standing the fact that he had invited others to this 
meeting in order to sign the edition of 1531). John 
Frederick Wolfgang of Zweibruecken and Ulrich of 
Mecklenburg proposed that also the Smalcald Arti- 
cles should be signed as Luther's interpretation of the 
Augsburg Confession. Both motions were postponed 
and the question was taken up : What is the difference 
between the different editions? John Frederick had 
brought a manuscript copy from his archives; it was 
a copy made by Spalatin from the manuscript original 
of the Augsburg Confession (but not in its very latest 
form) as publicly delivered to the emperor. Christoph 
had a manuscript written by Brenz. Besides this, 
there were presented printed editions of 1531, 1540 
and 1542. The princes now undertook the very tedi- 
ous work of "lower criticism" — that is, they compared 
and noted all differences which were to be found in 
these different documents in order to establish the 
authentic text. It took them two long days! Most 



88 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

princes absented themselves, and delegated this me- 
chanical work to their officials, who accompanied them. 
The collation of the various documents proved be- 
yond the shadow of a doubt that the printed edition 
of 1 53 1 agreed not in every respect with the manu- 
script copies, but better than any of the others consid- 
ered. And hence the prevailing opinion was : "Let us 
subscribe to the edition of 1531 as coming nearest to 
the text read to the emperor." But to this Frederick 
of the Palatinate objected most strenuously, as he 
found some phrases in this edition which he could 
not well adopt. On the other hand, all the various 
additions which had been made by Melanchthon in the 
later editions made the matter so much clearer. Five 
questions were now proposed for discussion: 

1. Shall the printed edition of 1531, of 1540 or of 
1542 be recognized as the authorized and standard 
text of the Augsburg Confession? 

2. Does the German text of 1531 in the phrase 
"unter der Gestalt von Brot und Wein" approve the 
doctrine of transubstantiation ? 

3. Does the declaration in the Latin text of this edi- 
tion in the Apology, "quia divisio sacramenti non con- 
venit cum institutioni Christi," permit a procession in 
which both elements are carried about ? 

4. Since Frederick had abolished the old ceremonies 
(still retained by others), could he possibly sign Arti- 
cle 21 with the phrase "retinetur enim missa apud 
nos"? 

5. Should the preface to be composed not rather 
refer to the Augustana Confessio Repetita of 1552 
than to the Smalcald Articles ? And should not, per- 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 89 

haps, the articles concerning the Lord's Supper, pro- 
cession and mass be briefly explained in this preface? 

Frederick pleaded most energetically for the edi- 
tion of 1540. But the invitations which August had 
sent out stated as the object that the edition of 1531 
should be signed, and most representatives had been 
so instructed. John Frederick, on the other hand, 
proposed that the manuscript copy should be adopted 
as the authorized text. As a compromise August pro- 
posed that the edition of 1531 should be adopted, but 
the edition of 1540 should be recognized as an inter- 
pretation. The princes finally decided thus: the 
printed edition of 1531 is to be signed, but in the 
preface only the Apology (and not the Smalcald Arti- 
cles) and the edition of 1540 should be mentioned. 
The task to propose a draft for such a preface was 
assigned to the Crypto-Calvinist, Elector Frederick 
of the Palatinate and the Elector August (for whom 
the Crypto-Calvinist Councilor Cracow, did the cleri- 
cal work) . No wonder that it showed the spirit of the 
authors. 

The preface was then composed. And the spirit 
was the "Philippist" or Crypto-Calvinistic spirit. 1 It 



1 It must not be forgotten that Frederick at this time had not 
only dismissed Heshusius (see Eucharist controversy),, and 
tried to get the Reformed theologians, Peter Martyr from 
Zuerich and Wolfgang Musculus from Berne ; both had declined 
on account of their age. Then he called Casper Olevianus, who 
had studied at Zuerich and Geneva, and a little later he called 
Ursinus and Tremellius, both recommended by Peter Martyr. 
He had retained the Crypto-Calvinists, Diller, Boquin and 
Dathenus, at the university. If he had not yet formally gone 



90 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

was stated that of late the Lutherans had been charged 
with no longer retaining the original Augsburg Con- 
fession of 1530, and that they were no longer one in 
doctrine. But they tolerated no other doctrine than 
that of the original confession. For this reason they 
had once more examined and signed the printed edi- 
tion of 1 53 1. The edition of 1540 (used also in some 
countries and handed to the Romanists at the collo- 
quy of Worms) is a more detailed form and inter- 
pretation of the original one. They also approved 
the Apology and other declarations which were to be 
understood according to the Augsburg Confession. 
The interpretation given to some phrases, as if they 
approved of the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, 
is to be rejected. On the other hand (this was added 
by the princes afterwards), they also now confessed 
the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the 
sacrament. Hence they present this subscribed and 
sealed Augsburg Confession to the emperor with the 
intention of thereby refuting the calumny that they 
are not of one mind. 

When this preface was presented, John Frederick 
and Ulrich of Mecklenburg were not satisfied, and de- 
manded time for consideration. They finally rejected 
the preface, because the sacramentarian errors had 
not been enumerated and condemned. They also 
claimed that the statement concerning agreement 
among the Lutherans was not true. The recent errors 

over to the Calvinists, he had already made the first steps 
leading there. And still he was the "great speaker" at this 
convention of Lutheran princes ! This was characteristic of 
the time, and for this faction within the Lutheran Church. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 91 

should have been disapproved. After a series of con- 
sultations (with clashes between father-in-law and 
son-in-law) the two princes left Naumburg. Others 
followed their example. The theologians, assembled 
in Lower Saxony to settle the Hardenberg matter, dis- 
approved of the Naumburg preface. Further en- 
deavor to appease John Frederick were in vain. 

The practical result of the endeavors of the rulers 
was that the breach between the two parties within 
the Lutheran Church only became wider. Frederick 
of the Palatinate soon openly went over to the Calvin- 
ist side and made the churches of his territory Re- 
formed; he expelled all consistent Lutherans. No 
unification was in sight. The Romanists triumphed 
when they heard of this. For they hoped for an easy 
victory over a house divided in itself. 

1 6. THE ENDEAVORS OF ANDREAE TO UNITE ALL PARTIES 

i. Andreae's Theses of 1569 

There was no one among the Lutheran princes who 
tried so often and so eagerly to bring about a settle- 
ment of these controversies as the Duke of Wuertem- 
berg, Christoph (1568). From his land came the man 
who hoped against hope and finally succeeded in sav- 
ing the Lutheran Church from dismemberment — long 
after the death of his patron prince. This man, whose 
name has been besmirched for this very reason by 
almost all the opponents of the Formula of Concord, 
is Jakob Andreae. 

Jakob Andreae did not begin his work at his own 
pleasure. Duke Christoph (1569) gave him a leave of 



92 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

absence at the request of Julius of Braunschweig' for 
the double purpose (i) of organizing the Lutheran 
Church of his possessions and (2) of bringing about 
an agreement between the churches. In Braun- 
schweig Duke Henry, the last rank enemy of Luther- 
anism from the former generation, had passed away. 
His territory came to his last surviving son, the Luth- 
eran Julius. The two theologians, Chemnitz, super- 
intendent of the free city of Braunschweig, and An- 
dreae, compiled a "Kirchenordnung" (book of statutes 
or church regulations) after they had visited the vari- 
ous churches and introduced the new doctrine. This 
"Kirchenordnung" (as was the case with so many 
similar documents of that time) contains also a doc- 
trinal part concerning the "form and type of the pure 
doctrine." The gospel is to be taught in all churches 
in accordance with the three ancient symbols, and the 
Augsburg Confession, its Apology, the Smalcald Arti- 
cles and the Catechisms of Luther. Chemnitz also 
wrote a "short, simple and necessary review" concern- 
ing the corruptions of the pure doctrine, which was 
made a part of the Kirchenordnung} 

After Andreae had finished this work of organizing 
in 1569, he returned via Wittenberg. He left a series 
of propositions with George Major, since the other 
professors were at the Altenburg colloquy. His idea 
was to mediate between Wittenberg and Jena. Any 
agreement between these two parties must be satis- 



1 This quite lengthy review of the controversies in its rela- 
tion to the text of the Formula of Concord has not yet been 
studied sufficiently. Balthasar has done so, but his method is 
not practical. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 93 

factory to those between the two extremes. He also 
sent the same propositions to various other prominent 
theologians and requested that they should approve 
them. In this way they hoped to unite the different 
factions. The propositions dealt with: 1. Justifica- 
tion; 2. Good Works; 3. Free Will; 4. Adiaphora; 
5. The Eucharist. 1 

But when Andreae visited Lower Saxony again he 
found that the Altenburg colloquy, held between the 
two extreme parties, had increased the prevalent feel- 
ing against the Wittenberg theologians. He could not 
even induce the theologians to subscribe to his propo- 
sitions merely as a preparation for a discussion. The 
Rostock faculty composed propositions on the same 
topics, which, of course, were much more anti-Philip- 
pistic. In middle and southern Germany he collected 
many signatures ; but as long as neither Jena nor Wit- 
tenberg signed them, this move proved a total failure. 
The Jena theologians did not wait until he came to 
them, but announced that they would in no way coun- 
tenance him. They even attacked and ridiculed him 
openly. And the Wittenberg theologians, both pub- 
licly and privately, assured him that they would accept 
only articles based upon their Corpus Doctrince Phil- 
ippicum. This was surely no good beginning. - 

Considering that there was a great longing for 
peace, how is this opposition to be explained? The 
most satisfactory answer is : The Lower Saxons were 
absolutely sure that even if the Wittenberg theologians 
signed propositions which were as indefinite as those 



Planck, VI, page 381. 



94 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

of Andreae, they would interpret them in their own 
interest. Hence an agreement would not amount to 
more than "a mere scrap of paper." They placed just 
as much value upon such a declaration as upon the 
hypocritical declarations by which these theologians 
appeased (and deceived) Elector August. They now 
even suspected Andreae of insincerity. 

Andreae apparently had not yet grasped the real 
issue and situation. He had too good an opinion of 
the theologians of Saxony, and thought the greater 
part of the controversies was mere wrangling over 
words. He probably over-estimated the political bit- 
terness. This is evident also from his next move. 

2. The Convention of Zerbst 
Andreae did not yet despair, but made another ef- 
fort in 1570. His propositions were not much milder 
than the declarations of the Formula of Concord; yet 
they had prejudiced many. He knew that it was very 
difficult to compose articles that would satisfy both 
parties. He now selected another way: If all who 
acknowledged the confessions adopted by Braun- 
schweig, then there might be peace. And who would 
refuse to recognize them as Lutheran? The Land- 
grave of Hessia and Duke Julius gave him letters of 
recommendation to the Elector of Saxony. Andreae 
requested him to send his theologians to Zerbst to meet 
the Low r er Saxon representatives. The theologians 
of Wittenberg and Leipzig could not but attend, since 
the elector ordered them to be present. Also the Lower 
Saxons could not well absent themselves. 
At the Zerbst convention (May 7, 1570) everything 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 95 

opened auspiciously. After a discussion of the pro- 
posals the following statement was made: 

No new explanations or declarations are to be made, since 
such declarations, made on other occasions, had been ridiculed 
as new confessions, and were made the basis of the accusa- 
tion that the Lutherans needed a new confession every day. 
For this reason they would now render this honor to their 
beloved fathers and preceptors that they adhered only to the 
older, well-founded and thorough confessions and their in- 
terpretations. 

They therefore unanimously recognize the Augsburg Con- 
fession, with its Apology, the Smalcald Articles and the Cate- 
chisms of Master Luther as the certain and infallible rule 
by which not only the past controversies, but also all future 
ones should be decided. 

For exclusively according to these four normal standard 
books, not only all other books of Luther and also all books of 
Master Philip should be interpreted and understood, but they 
desired that also in their own books whatsoever was obscure 
or doubtful should be interpreted, and nothing could by any- 
one be interpreted or assumed to have any other meaning. 
But everything that is in conflict with these four books would 
be rejected and condemned. 

A resolution was also passed requesting the princes to stop 
their ministers and theologians from public attacks. Besides, 
the princes were petitioned to suspend any that were under 
suspicion from their office. No other state should receive 
such until they had cleared themselves. 

Everything seemed well done. Then when the 
propositions, by which these four books were recog- 
nized as the only symbolical books, were to be signed, 
the Wittenberg theologians subscribed with the proviso 
that they interpreted these books according to their 
confessional book — the Corpus Misnicum. And this 



96 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

declaration again made their confession a "mere scrap 
of paper." 

The resolutions of Zerbst had been adopted merely 
tentatively. They should be reported to all churches 
and should be of binding force after adoption. The 
Jena theologians — who had not taken part — at once 
ridiculed Andreae for his glorious attainments. And 
now the evil opinion of Andreae in Lower Saxony was 
strengthened. He was made the by-word for super- 
ficial and unionistic disregard of differences. The re- 
sponsibility for the duplicity of the Saxons was shoul- 
dered upon him, as if he had arranged this scheme 
beforehand with them. The subscription of the 
Saxons was declared to be a fraud. And the further 
developments — the Wittenberg Catechism of 1570 and 
the Grundfeste of 1571 — clearly demonstrated that 
this was correct. Of course no one could now think 
of pressing these Zerbst propositions; yea, no one 
dared to speak of union. 

Andreae so far had still entertained a better opinion 
of the Philippists. They, no doubt, had succeeded in 
deceiving him for a time, but he was now undeceived, 
and saw their duplicity. He had to suffer most for 
their deception. He now abandoned them entirely 
and openly came out against them. The books which 
were published by the Philippists within a year after 
the Zerbst convention induced the Lower Saxons, 
under the leadership of Chemnitz, to adopt a common 
declaration in which the Philippists were branded 
without qualification as traitors. Their Crypto-Cal- 
vinism was now recognized by all Lutherans outside 
of Saxony, and by a good many in Saxony. Only 






THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 97 

Elector August, in his spite against the Flacianists, 
saw in them the innocent martyrs. And whenever the 
assertions and warnings from outside reached him 
and aroused his suspicions they succeeded in deceiving 
him once more. But their measure of iniquity was 
full and needed just one more drop to overflow. They 
very soon betrayed themselves. (For particulars of the 
Crypto-Calvinistic intrigues see the historical intro- 
duction of Article 10.) 

17. THE ENDEAVORS OF ANDREAE TO UNITE ALL LUTH- 
ERANS 

I. Andreae's Six Sermons and the Swabian Concordia 
Andreae returned to Wuertemberg a wiser man. 
There was plenty of work in store for him under the 
new duke. He had learned a lesson: "Trau, schau, 
wem?" If he had sinned, he had sinned by putting too 
charitable a construction on the doubtful words of 
the successors of Melanchthon. He now saw that the 
only feasible plan would be (as suggested by Mar- 
bach) to unite all those that were not radical partisans 
and yet were Lutherans. And of such he had found 
ever so many in all parts of Germany, especially in 
Lower Saxony. But on account of the bitter feeling 
against him, as if he had concocted a scheme to leave 
a loophole for the Crypto-Calvinists, he saw that he 
must wait for more favorable conditions. 

He patiently waited, meanwhile keeping his eyes 
open. His chance came before the crisis in Saxony. 
Selneccer, now in Braunschweig, had published his 
"Institutio religionis Christianae" in the fall of 1572, 



98 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

and had dedicated it to Louis of Wuertemberg. 1 In 
the preface he thanked the duke for the service which 
Andreae had rendered to Braunschweig a few years 
previously; he expressed his joy over the fact that 
the two countries were one in faith and doctrine. 
This open declaration of unity in faith was a welcome 
occasion for Andreae to return the compliment by 
dedicating a work which was just going to press 
to the Duke of Braunschweig. This work was, "Six 
Sermons on the Controversies Within the Lutheran 
Church from 1548 to 1572." 2 He arranged these in 
this order: 1. Justification. 2. Good Works. 3. Orig- 
inal Sin. 4. Adiaphora. 5. Law and Gospel. 6. The 
Person of Christ. He also asserted that the churches 
of Swabia (Wuertemberg) and those of Braunschweig 
and elsewhere, agreed in the confession of the pure 
doctrine over against Crypto-Calvinism. In forward- 
ing copies of these sermons to Duke Julius of Braun- 
schweig and Chemnitz, he enclosed a suggestion of the 
faculty of Tuebingen and the consistory at Stuttgart 
to the effect that these sermons might form a bond of 



1 As a rule, books were dedicated at that time to prominent 
persons ; if they were able, they acknowledged the honor re- 
ceived by enclosing an amount in cash. 

2 He had preached a series of thirty-three sermons at Esslin- 
gen in 1567 on the various errors of the Papists, Zwinglians, 
Schwenkfeldians and Anabaptists. These had been printed. 
A new edition had been made necessary. In the preface to 
this new edition Andreae reported his endeavors to bring 
about peace and his failures. He now added a fifth part in 
the form of sermons on the divisions within the Lutheran 
Church. He does not state that he actually delivered this 
series of six sermons. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 99 

fellowship between the Lutherans in the north and 
the south. He also sent copies to Chytraeus, West- 
phal, Wigand and others requesting them to acknowl- 
edge 'the unity of views. 

Duke Julius as well as Chemnitz answered that they 
fully approved the statements of Andreae as correct; 
but they suggested that the idea of Andreae could be 
realized only if the matter was brought into the form 
of propositions. Chemnitz suggested that (consider- 
ing the prejudice in Lower Saxony against the author) 
it might be prudent if the statement were issued by 
other theologians of Swabia, or, best of all, by the 
faculty of Tuebingen. Andreae at once began this 
work himself and soon finished it. But he laid it 
before the Tuebingen faculty and then sent the arti- 
cles to Julius and Chemnitz on March 22, 1574. This 
was about the time when the storm broke in Saxony; 
but Andreae knew nothing of the change taking 
place. In composing the article he utilizes (as sug- 
gested by Chemnitz) the similar articles of Chemnitz 
in the Braunschweig Corpus. The document sent by 
Andreae is known as the "Tuebinger Buck" or 
"Schwaebische Cone or die." 1 These articles are short 
and to the point. Andreae here had rearranged the 



1 These articles were sought in vain by Heppe. He found 
at Wolfenbuettel a form which he erroneously considered 
the articles of Andreae. He published them as such in his 
"Ceschichte des deutschen Protestantismus in den Jahren, 
1 555-I58I," Vol. Ill, page 75-, 66 (1857). Nine years later 
Hachfeld found not the original, but a copy, and published 
the same in "Niedner's Zeitschrift fucr historische Theologie, 
1866," pages 234ff. 



100 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

articles and had added an article on predestina- 
tion. He presented the following articles : I. Original 
Sin. 2. Free Will. 3. Justification. 4. Good Works. 
5. Law and the Gospel. 6. The Third Use of the Law. 
7. Adiaphora. 8. The Lord's Supper. 9. The Person 
of Christ. 10. Eternal Predestination. 11. Other 
Sects. 1 

2. The Revision of Andreae's Articles by Chemnitz 

Chemnitz did not reply at once to the request of 
Andreae; hence Andreae and the faculty wrote again. 
They requested Chemnitz to use his influence in Lower 
Saxony so that these articles would be ratified. We 
have no record whether Chemnitz laid the original 
draft by Andreae before the Lutherans of Lower Sax- 
ony or whether he made use of the permission given 
to him by Andreae of improving the articles. The 
latter may be assumed. Duke Julius officially in- 
structed Chemnitz to negotiate with the various dis- 
trict churches in order to bring about unification. He 
also furnished the necessary funds. In this way 
Chemnitz came to the allied cities as the ambassador 
and plenipotentiary of Julius. A conference of the 



1 Though these articles were published in 1866, they were 
entirely overlooked until about fifteen years ago. The Calwer 
history of the Church first mentioned them. Since then they 
have frequently been referred to. But it seems as if no 
one examined them carefully and collated them with the two 
forms presented by Heppe. Elsewhere we point out which 
parts were received into the Formula of Concord. (See the 
individual articles.) 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 101 

theologians of Hamburg, Luebeck and Lueneburg was 
arranged (July 3, 1574) at Luebeck to consider this 
matter. A second one was held in October at Bergen- 
dorf. Various changes were recommended and Chem- 
nitz embodied them in the document. It was agreed 
that the ministers should consider the draft still more 
carefully at home. They should forward any recom- 
mendations to the faculty of Rostock, which should 
then revise the whole and report it back to the various 
cities. 

Heppe presents two forms; both were found at 
Wolfenbuettel. 1 The shorter one probably presents 
the form in which Chemnitz laid it before the other 
cities, or, possibly the form in which it was sent to 
Rostock. A comparison with the "Schwaebische Con- 
cordie" shows that it is a very considerate and careful 
revision. In revising the draft of Andreae, Chemnitz 
very wisely utilized many of the official declarations 
adopted by the Lower Saxons in the controversies. 
The longer form published by Heppe is the Swabian- 
Saxon Formula as returned to Tuebingen. 3 



1 Heppe erroneously considered the shorter form as the 
Swabian Concordia. 

2 Pfaff also published the Swabian-Saxon Formula in his 
"Acta et Scripta Wuertembergica." His edition is full of 
errors. Even the order of the articles is not correct. Pfaff's 
edition arranges them thus : 1. Original Sin. 2. Person of 
Christ. 3. Justification. 4. Good Works. 5. Law and Gospel. 
6. Third Use of the Law. 7. Lord's Supper. 8. Predestina- 
tion. 9. Adiaphora. 10. Free Will. II. Other Sects. But 
the section Mueller, page 724, Nos. 94-96 (which are the con- 
clusion of all articles) in Pfaff do not occur after the article 
on Free Will, but after the article on Predestination (No. 8). 



102 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

j. The Swabian-Saxon Formula 

The faculty at Rostock was highly respected as the 
representative of theological learning in Lower Saxony. 
It had taken the lead in the controversies of the past 
years. It stood for sound Lutheranism over against 
wavering Philippism. The leading theologian was 
Chytraeus, who had studied under Melanchthon, but, 
like Chemnitz and many other pupils of the Preceptor, 
did not share his teacher's half-heartedness. Chytraeus 
acted as the amanuensis of the faculty. He made 
many changes in the articles laid before him. He pre- 
ferred to rewrite two articles, the second and seventh. 
The traces of the style of Chytraeus can be easily 
found in these articles. 1 On July n, 1575 (long after 
the Crypto-Calvinists had been unmasked), the repre- 
sentatives of the four cities met once more, this time 
at Moelln. They accepted the revision of Chytraeus 
as laid before them. It was resolved that the docu- 
ment should now be sent to the Swabians for their ap- 
proval of the changes. They should then sign it and 
return it for the signatures of the northern cities, who 
would then publish it as the agreement of Lower 
Saxony and the Swabians. 

The Swabian-Saxon articles were sent to Chem- 
nitz. Before forwarding them to Tuebingen he in- 



This proves that the manuscript at his disposal was mixed 
up in some way and his arrangement is not reliable. 

1 Chytraeus is very voluminous in his presentation. A sam- 
ple of his style which approaches that of Guericke can be 
seen by studying the construction of Nos. 43-47 in Mueller, 
page 655- 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 103 

duced other cities to approve them. 1 Finally, on Sep- 
tember 5, 1575, he forwarded the confession to An- 
dreae, who had already inquired anxiously concerning 
the state of the matter. We can easily imagine the 
surprise of Andreae when he received the manuscript. 
He had submitted a short, terse and popular review 
of the controversies; and now he received a learned 
treatise full of Latin terms and technical phrases. It 
was difficult to trace the framework of his draft. The 
document was so little in line with the Swabian idea 
that the theologians laid the matter upon the table for 
the next few months. Chemnitz meanwhile was busy 
spreading it among the northern Lutherans and enlist- 
ing their co-operation. He forwarded it to Pomerania 
and Prussia and other sections, inviting the leaders 
there to become a party to the statement of the genuine 
Lutheran doctrine. 

It is impossible to catalogue here the changes which 
were made in the Swabian Concordie. A great many 
of them were abandoned through the changes made 
in the succeeding revisions. The most essential change 
was the substitution of articles two and seven in which 
very little of the previous material was retained. 2 



x Heppe (III, page 57) makes the statement that Chem- 
nitz once more used his pen and made editorial changes. He 
does not state his authority for this assertion. I have found 
no record concerning this. 

2 The Bertelsmann Verlag at Guetersloh was about to pub- 
lish a comparison of the various stages of the text, present- 
ing a survey of the gradual growth, when the war broke out. 
This comparison has been composed by the author. The 



104 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 



manuscript is still in the author's possession; he hopes to 
issue it sometime in the near future. As long as it is not 
published scholars who specialize on the Form of Concord 
may have the use of the manuscript 



CHAPTER V 

The Completion of the Formula of Concord 

l8. the maulbrunn formula 
Not only the Jena theologians (whom Elector 
August hated most bitterly as Flacianists) but also 
others, had again and again warned the elector against 
his theologians. There were among these also some 
princes whom August knew to be as sincere Lutherans 
(and not Flacianists) as he desired to be himself. The 
old Count Ernest of Henneberg, who had personally 
called on him when the Exegesis Perspicua had been 
published, 1 warned him that he should be careful how 
he would fill the vacancies and whom he would choose 
as his advisers. August expressed the wish that some 
of the genuine Lutherans should furnish him a state- 
ment in which the distinctive doctrines would be 
plainly presented, so that he could test his theologians. 
In November, 1575, the count met the Margrave Karl 
of Baden at the wedding of Duke Louis of Wuertem- 
berg. The three princes discussed the conditions of 
the Church, and Count Ernest told of his conversation 
with August. He had hopes that a Pan-Lutheran uni- 
fication might result. 

The princes inquired of the three theologians 
present, Lucas Osiander, Balthasar Bidembach and 



1 For the history of the Crypto-Calvinistic intrigues see the 
historical introduction to Articles 7 and 8. 

105 



106 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 



Adam Scherdinger, for their opinion as to how such 
a statement should be composed. On November 14, 
1575, these men presented their suggestions in writing. 
The simplest way would be: 1. To state the text 
of the article of the Augsburg Confession under dis- 
cussion. 2. The erroneous view should be outlined 
without mentioning any names. 3. The doctrine of 
the Augsburg Confession should then be proven by 
Scripture passages. 4. To this should be added the 
historical proof from the Apology, Smalcald Articles 
and Luther's Catechisms. 5. Finally a few plain and 
clear quotations should be added from the writings of 
Luther. No quotations should be taken from Melanch- 
thon's books, since his later writings differed consid- 
erably from those of former years. 

The princes approved this plan, and then instructed 
Lucas Osiander and Bidembach to write a statement 
along these lines. This was done and the draft was 
discussed at Maulbrunn by representatives of the three 
princes and signed January 16, 1576. This is the Maul- 
brunn Formula. The arrangement of the articles here 
is as follows: 1. Original Sin. 2. The Person of 
Christ. 3. Justification. 4. Law and the Gospel. 5. 
Good Works. 6. The Lord's Supper. 7. Adiaphora. 
8. Free Will. 9. The Third Use of the Law. 

The Swabian-Saxon Concordia had been received at 
Tuebingen, and, no doubt, was accessible to Osiander. 
Whether he made use of it and to what extent has not 
been investigated. The text of the Maulbrunn For- 
mula was unknown until the original was found at 
Dresden in 1866 by Th. Pressel. He published it in 
the "Jahrbuecher fuer deutsche Theologie," 1866, Vol. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 107 

xi, pages 64off. It then remained unknown until the 
Calwer history directed attention of scholars to its 
place of publication. The relation of the text of the 
Maulbrunn Formula to the text of the Formula of 
Concord had formerly not been investigated. Heppe 
published his "Text des Bergischen Bucks" nine years 
before the text of the Maulbrunn Formula was printed. 
The parts taken over from the Maulbrunn Formula 
are: Introduction, Nos. i-io; 11-13 (with a few 
changes); Art. I, Nos. 35-38; Art. II, Nos. 28-45; 
Art. VI, No. 12 ; Art. VII, Nos. 20-32 ; Art. VIII, Nos. 
81-86 (with changes) ; Art. X, Nos. 19-23. 



19. THE TORGAU BOOK 

The Elector of Saxony had been convinced by the 
investigation following after the publication of the 
Exegesis Perspicua that his Crypto-Calvinistic theolo- 
gians had knowingly and willfully deceived him. He 
had found convicting evidence in their private corre- 
spondence that they had deliberately planned to bring 
Saxony into the ranks of the Calvinistic states. He 
laid this evidence before the estates of his country. 
He now also decided to join the endeavors of others 
to bring about a Pan-Lutheran unification by uniting 
all Lutheran countries through the adoption of one 
common Corpus Doctrinae. This plan was approved 
by the estates and by the rulers of Brandenburg, 
Hessia and Henneberg. Elector August therefore, at 
the request of his estates, after the collapse of Crypto- 
Calvinism, assembled his chief theologians at Lichten- 
berg February 15, and asked them for their opinion 



108 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

as to the way in which this plan of unification could 
best me realized. 1 

The theologians recommended the following plan : 
The basis for union is to be the adoption of the Script- 
ures, the Ecumenical Creeds, the Unaltered Augsburg 
Confession and its Apology, the Catechisms of Luther, 
and the Smalcald Articles. The Saxon Crypto-Cal- 
vinistic writings are to be abolished. A convention of 
pacific and unsuspected Lutheran theologians should 
be arranged in order to discuss the articles of the 
Augsburg Confession (as suggested by the Landgrave 
of Hessia). Chytraeus, Chemnitz, Andreae and Mar- 
bach should be among these theologians. 

The elector now requested Duke William to grant 
an indeterminate furlough to Jacob Andreae in order 
that he might be used by the elector for this specific 
work. Andreae arrived at Torgau on the 9th of April, 
and at once set to work. The two documents received 
by the elector were turned over to him. The following 
theologians, selected as representatives of various 
countries, were requested to meet with the Saxon the- 
ologians at Torgau on May 28, 1576: Andreae of 
Swabia, Chemnitz of Braunschweig, Chytraeus of 
Mecklenburg, Andreas Musculus and Christoph Koer- 
ner of Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, from Brandenburg. 
The Saxons were: Crell, Harder, Moerlin (Coburg), 
Selneccer, Greser, Mirus, Lysthenius, Jagenteufel, 
Cornicaelius, Sagittarius, Glaser and Heydenreich. 

This assembly was requested by the elector to dis- 



*For details of these deliberations see Richard, pages 420- 
421. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 109 

cuss the past controversies on the basis of the Maul- 
brann Formula and the Swabian-Saxon Concord. 
They were instructed to propose a formula which 
might be submitted to all Lutheran princes for ap- 
proval. Andreae had suggested to the elector that the 
Maulbrunn Formula should be made the basis of the 
new confession, since it was so very simple and yet to 
the point; but Chemnitz and Chytraeus preferred to 
use the Swabian-Saxon Concordia as the basis. This 
latter document was known by this time to all outside 
of the Saxonies, and had been approved universally, 
while the Maulbrunn Formula was known to few out- 
side of the authors. They suggested that suitable parts 
from the Maulbrunn Formula might be inserted into 
the Swabian-Saxon agreement. This motion pre- 
vailed. It was furthermore decided that all the Latin 
passages and terms be either dropped or translated. 
The two forms were then carefully compared. The 
introduction of the Maulbrunn Formula was substi- 
tuted for the first part of the former introduction. 
(Compare Mueller, page 565, Nos. 1-10.) No. 11 was 
also taken over. 

The following additions were made besides trans- 
lating all Latin phrases. (So thorough were the 
authors in hunting for Latin phrases that they even 
translated the title of Luther's book, "De servo ar- 
bitrio.") 

Art. I : A few editorial changes were made, and Nos. 
35-38 were taken over from the Maulbrunn Formula. 

Art. II : Nos. 28-45 were taken over from the Maul- 
brunn Formula. 

Art. Ill : Nos. 3, 4, 18, 19 and 67 were added. 



110 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

Art. IV : Nos. 4, 5 and 36 were added. 

Art. V: Nos. 7, 10 and 11 were added; No. 12 was 
taken over from the Maulbrunn Formula. 

Art. VI: No. 1 was recast; Nos. 15-19 were 
added. 

Art. VII : Nos. 4 and 5 were added ; Nos. 20-32 were 
inserted from the Maulbrunn Formula. 

Art. VIII: Nos. 13-30 were inserted new, also the 
passages, Matt. 28, John 13, Col. 2 in No. 70. Nos. 
80-86 were taken from the Maulbrunn Formula. 

Art. IX : was inserted as a new article. It contained 
a sermon of Luther with an introduction. 

Art. X: Nos. 18-23 were inserted from the Maul- 
brunn Formula, and No. 25 was added. 

Art. XI: Nos. 15, 24, 28, 39, 40 were revised. 1 

On June 7 the theologians reported to the elector 
that they had completed their work. A service of 
thanksgiving was held in which Selneccer preached. 
Similar thanksgiving services were held in Mecklen- 
burg and in the cities of Lower Saxony. 

The elector now had many copies made in hand- 
writing of this document, which is known as the "Tor- 
gau Book." These he sent to the various Lutheran 
princes and cities with the request that the matter 
should be submitted to their theologians for their 
opinions. The replies should be sent for consideration 
to the elector. Chemnitz was instructed to correspond 
with the cities of Lower Saxony and with Prussia. 

' This shows that the assertion of Richard, page 423, that 
the diplomacy of Andreae gave the Formula of Concord a 
"decidedly Swabian complexion," is not borne out by the 
facts. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD m 

Andreae solicited the co-operation of Holstein and 
Hessia. 

During the summer and fall of 1-576 conventions 
were held in almost all Lutheran countries, and the 
"opinions" {censurae) were submitted to the elector, 
who received most of them by February 1, 1577. The 
great majority of these opinions expressed unqualified 
approval of the doctrines as formulated in the Torgau 
Book. A great many minor changes were proposed. 
The "opinion" of Swabia and Baden was most practi- 
cal; for it not only offered criticism of passages, but 
also proposed a better form where changes were sug- 
gested; most of these were adopted. The censures 
from the countries in which Philippism was strong 
objected to the fact that Melanchthon's name and 
works had been intentionally omitted; so Hessia, 
Pomerania, Anhalt, Magdeburg, Simmern. On the 
other hand, the opinion from Prussia was outspokenly 
anti-Melanchthonian, and demanded that Melanchthon 
and others should be condemned by name. In regard 
to the doctrinal statement there was little criticism. 

20. THE BERGEN BOOK 

After the censures had been received, two (perhaps 
three) meetings were held at Bergen, near Magdeburg, 
and the various suggestions were carefully considered. 
Andreae had prepared copies of the Torgau Book 
with a wide margin on which the respective censures 
had been noted, so that each member had the material 
for discussion under his eyes. In consideration of 
the almost universal criticism that the document was 
altogether too voluminous, Andreae had composed a 



112 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

summary, called the Epitome, which was considered 
and approved. In this he presented in each article: 
i. A brief statement of the respective controversy. 
2. A positive statement of the Lutheran doctrine. 3. A 
statement of the various false doctrines rejected. At 
the first meeting, March 1-14, Andreae, Chemnitz and 
Selneccer carefully considered the criticisms offered. 
Many recommendations were accepted and embodied. 
At the second meeting also Chytraeus and Musculus 
were present. The changes adopted at the previous 
meeting were discussed and adopted by a majority 
vote. Chytraeus felt offended that so many changes 
were made in the articles of which he was the author 
— the second, on Free Will, and the seventh, on the 
Lord's Supper. Here many paragraphs had been either 
condensed or merely omitted. This had been done 
to shorten the document. 

The following changes were made in the Torgau 
Book at Bergen : 

Art. I : Nos. 9, 57-62 were added. Changes were 
made in Nos. 2, 5, 10, 13, 27, 33, 38, 43, 44, 45, 54, 56. 

Art. II: Nos. 1-7 were substituted for the previous 
elaborate material concerning which there was no dis- 
agreement. Nos. 16, 23, 29, 44 (end), 59-63 (as sub- 
stitute, 65, 66, 68 (as substitute), 76, 86 and 90 (as 
substitute), were inserted. Changes were made in 
Nos. yy and 83. 

Art. Ill: Nos. 6 and 9 were added; Nos. 1, 15, 20, 
21, 29, 39, 43 and 56 were revised. 

Art. IV: No. 10 was added; changes were made in 
Nos. 1, 3, 8, 17, 29. 

Art. V: Additions were made in Nos. 13, 19, 22 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 113 

(last sentence). Changes were made in Nos. 5, 6, 15 
and 24. 

Art. VI : In No. 49 the last clause was added, and 
Nos. 7, 17 and 18 were revised. 

Art. VII : Additions were made to Nos. 37 and 60 ; 
(sections following here were omitted), 62 (followed 
by omissions), 90 (then again omissions,) 91, 104 and 
105. Changes were made in Nos. 67, 69, 92 and 128. 

Art. VIII : Additions to the text were made in Nos. 
12, 18, 19, 28-30, 61, 62, 70 (last two sentences), 83 
(quotations more complete). Nos. 31-35 and 38-45 
were inserted as substitutes. Changes were made in 
Nos. 9, 26, 52, 64 and 82. 

Art IX : The present form was substituted for the 
long sermon of Luther. 

Art. X: Only No. 24 was added. 

Art. XI : Additions were made in Nos. 6, 37, 55 at 
end, and in 88 the first sentence was added. Changes 
in Nos. 42 and 52. 

Art. XII: No. 13 was added and Nos. 6 and 40 
were revised. 

21. THE ADOPTION AND PUBLICATION OF THE BOOK OF 
CONCORD 

It must be borne in mind that at this time almost 
every Lutheran country had its own symbolical Corpus. 
Every one contained the Augsburg Confession, but 
very few were entirely alike in the other constituent 
parts. It was the idea of the Elector of Saxony that 
one collection of authoritative books should be re- 
ceived in all Lutheran countries. As such symbolical 
books the Bergen Book specified the Ecumenical 



114 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

Creeds, the Augsburg Confession and the Apology, 
the two Catechisms of Luther and the Smalcald Arti- 
cles. When it became evident, in 1578, that the work 
of unification would be brought about by the almost 
universal adoption of the Formula of Concord, the 
elector at once corresponded with the other Lutheran 
princes and proposed that now the various books 
recognized in the Formula should be printed together 
with the new document. The printing commenced as 
early as 1578, under the direction of Jakob Andreae, 
assisted by Peter Glaser and Caspar Fueger, at Dres- 
den. The theologians composed two introductions for 
this normative edition of Lutheran symbols. One was 
to be signed by the princes, and contained a statement 
why these documents were given to the world. (This 
is the introduction to the Book of Concord.) The 
other introduction was a statement by the theologians 
in which they replied to various attacks upon the For- 
mula of Concord and in which they interpreted their 
position. At the demand of the new elector of the 
Palatinate (the Lutheran son of the Reformed Fred- 
erick) it was changed into an epilogue; but finally it 
was omitted entirely and only that section containing 
the patristic quotations concerning the person of 
Christ was added as an Appendix. 1 

On the fiftieth anniversary of the Augsburg Confes- 



1 This projected introduction or epilogue was found and 
published by Pressel. (See "Jahrbucchcr fuer deutsche Theo- 
logie," XI, pages 711-742.) It is of great historical value, 
as it refutes many assertions and charges which were made 
at that time and are repeated even to-day. It interprets a 
few controverted points. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 115 

sion this collection of symbolical documents was pub- 
lished at Dresden and named: the Book of Concord. 
It had the fate of many books of that day, viz., either 
eliminations of typographical errors or changes of type 
during the slow process of printing. Reprints at 
Magdeburg and Tuebingen were issued in the same 
year by speculative publishers. 

In the Formula of Concord the German text is the 
authorized text which was adopted by the princes and 
subscribed by the Church officials. Already in 1578 
Lucas Osiander of Tuebingen began to translate it 
and Jacob Heerbrand finished the work. A Latin edi- 
tion of the whole Book of Concord was published in 
1580 as a private work of Selneccer. His translation 
of the Formula was revised at Quedlinburg in 1583 
by Chemnitz, and published the next year as the official 
translation. It became the textus receptus. The best 
German-Latin edition is the edition of J. H. Mueller 
(Bertelsmann Verlag). The best English edition is 
that of H. E. Jacobs. 1 



*For the various editions, see Mueller and Jacobs, or 
Richard. 



CHAPTER VI 
The Formula of Concord as a Lutheran Symbol 

22. its adoption 

The theologians assembled at Torgau and Bergen 
had been instructed by the Electors of Saxony and 
Brandenburg to present a doctrinal statement of the 
genuine Lutheran doctrine. The Book of Bergen, 
therefore, on May 28, 1577, was no more than a re- 
port to the two princes absolutely on a par with the 
statement which Melanchthon had presented to the 
princes at Augsburg before they attached their signa- 
tures to the document. These two princes now ap- 
proved this declaration of the genuine Lutheran doc- 
trine, and communicated it to the other Lutheran 
princes with the request that they should likewise ap- 
prove it and adopt it as the standard for their churches. 
This was done by the third Protestant elector (Louis 
of the Palatinate) and by twenty princes, twenty-four 
counts, four barons and twenty-four cities. By the 
adoption through the rulers the Formula of Concord 
became the standard according to which all public 
preaching and teaching was to be regulated. 

It had been proposed to call a general synod, at 
which the work of the theologians assembled at Torgau 
and Bergen should be discussed and eventually rati- 
fied or revised. The opponents of the Formula out- 
side of the Lutheran Church were especially emphatic 
116 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD uj 

in demanding such a convocation; they hoped to have 
the Lutheran character of the document changed on 
such an occasion. No such synod had ever been held, 
and it would not have been in line with the organiza- 
tion of the Lutheran Church at that time. Synods 
and assemblies, according to the organization which 
had come into existence after the break with Roman- 
ism, had only an advisory character. There was no 
universal Lutheran Church from the standpoint of or- 
ganization at that time; nor has there ever been one. 
Local and territorial conventions had expressed them- 
selves in regard to the doctrinal contents of the docu- 
ment. By the treaty of Passau and the Peace of Augs- 
burg the principle had been established (which is in 
force in Europe to this day) that the legal representa- 
tive of the non-Romanist Churches is the ruling power 
of the country ; according to this principle both Luth- 
eran and Reformed princes governed their countries 
at that time and afterwards. According to the prin- 
ciple : Cujus regio, ejus religio, the head of the state 
was made ex officio the representative of the Church. 
This fact must be considered in studying the question 
whether the Formula of Concord was adopted legally 
or not by the Lutheran Church in 1580. The adoption 
of the document finished at Bergen by the rulers was 
all that was necessary to make it a symbolical book. 
The rejection by a ruler was all that was required for 
its rejection. 

This procedure may be called an "act of usurpation 
on the part of the state" (Richard). But then the 
adoption of the Augsburg Confession was still more 
an act of usurpation ; for at that time the principle had 



118 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

not yet been established making the princes the legal 
representatives. In our modern democratic time, 
especially here in America, this method would be im- 
possible, since it would be impossible under our synod- 
ical organization. But in the autocratic age it was the 
form in which all laws and regulations, both in church 
and state were made. It is an anachronism to demand 
for that period the method of the nineteenth and twen- 
tieth centuries, or an American method in semi-medie- 
val Europe. 

The princes had adopted the Formula of Concord, 
as they legally could and might do as the recognized 
territorial representatives of the territorial Church. 
They had not done so without the advice of their 
legal advisers. They now presented this new confes- 
sion to all their church officials, and demanded a spe- 
cific declaration whether these recognized it as their 
symbolical standard or not. As in our age every 
Church demands from every candidate for ordination 
a formal, solemn declaration that he accepts the author- 
ity of the respective confession, so here the new con- 
fession was laid before all persons who were engaged 
in the work of the Church as a test of their orthodoxy. 
It is true that "the ministers and teachers, whose rulers 
had approved the Formula of Concord, had the alter- 
native presented, either expressly or by implication, of 
subscribing or of being discharged from the post of 
pastor or teacher" (Richard, page 499). But the same 
would take place in any Church to-day that still has or 
clings to any confession. Representatives of the 
princes visited the different districts and presented the 
book for subscription. It was read, and wherever ob- 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 119 

jections were voiced they were answered. In Saxony- 
only one pastor, one superintendent and one school 
teacher .refused to subscribe. In Brandenburg the same 
result was obtained; only that here the approval was 
unanimous at one synodical meeting at Lebus, July 22. 
No opposition was found in Lower Saxony and 
Wuertemberg. In Mecklenburg the superintendent 
of Wismar and one or two pastors refused to attach 
their signatures. They were temporarily suspended 
from office and were granted time for consideration. 
When they continued to refuse their signature they 
were formally deposed from office and had to find 
another way of making their living. In Prussia the 
markgrave, George Frederick, consulted the bishop 
( Wigand) and the assembled clergy. These approved, 
although their request that all heterodox teachers 
should be specified by name had been rejected. The 
markgrave then accepted it, and made it obligatory 
for Prussia. In all about 8000 signatures were attached 
to the Formula of Concord. 1 

2$. THE REJECTION OF THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

There were countries in which the rulers were under 
the influence of theologians who were not favorable 
to the new statement of Lutheran faith. The practi- 
cal result was that in these countries the Formula was 
not adopted — at least, not at that time. This was not 
done by a popular vote of the congregations or the 
clergy, but by the act of the rulers. 



l A list of signatures is given in the old editions of the Book 
of Concord. The first editions of Mueller had then also; in 
later editions they were omitted. (See Schmauk, page 671.) 



120 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

In Holstein Andreae had given offence to the ambi- 
tious leading minister, Paul von Eitzen. He felt hurt 
that he had not been invited to take part in the re- 
vision of the articles. In consequence of this personal 
animosity the duke was counselled by him to reply 
that there was no need of a new symbol in Holstein. 
The old doctrine was retained here in its purity with- 
out the approval of the new Formula. 

In Pomerania the theologians were not yet ready 
to sacrifice their Luthero-Melanchthonian Corpus. 
They emphatically declared themselves as satisfied 
with the doctrine of the Formula. Some time later 
(1593) they formally adopted the seventh, eighth and 
eleventh articles, and thereby declared themselves as 
opposed to Calvinism in these fundamental distinctive 
doctrines. Finally they accepted the Book of Concord 
and abandoned the Pomeranian Corpus. 

In Magdeburg, Frankfurt-on-the-Main and Nuern- 
berg there were influential men who resented the treat- 
ment of the Preceptor in the Formula. They also felt 
injured in their dignity (as also those at Strasburg, 
Spires and Worms) that they had not been asked to 
co-operate in the initial stages. They did, however, 
not reject the doctrine. Also Danzig, Weissenburg and 
Windsheim refused to accept it. Later on, though, 
these cities joined the others in making the acceptance 
of the Formula obligatory on the clergy. 

In Cleve-Berg, Mark and Ravensberg, Halberstadt, 
Osnabrueck, Ortenburg, Austria, Bohemia, a part of 
Silesia and Lausitz, the Roman government prevented 
the pastors and teachers to express their acceptance 
by a formal approval. The public doctrine, however, 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 121 

was that of the Formula without a formal obligation. 

Crypto-Calvinism showed itself in Bremen, Liegnitz, 
Brieg and Wohlau, Hesse-Cassel, Anhalt, Zweibruec- 
ken, Nassau, Bentheim, Tecklenburg and Solms. Here 
the rulers rejected the Formula. These finally were 
guided by their theological leaders to the part of the 
Church which these leaders chose in preference to the 
Lutheranism of the other parts of Germany — to the 
Church of Calvin. 

24. THE FORMULA OF CONCORD IN THE NEXT CENTU- 
RIES 

In the great struggle between Lutheran and Calvin- 
istic theology the attacks on the Formula of Concord 
were bitter and unceasing. On the other hand, the 
importance of this final declaration of Lutheran the- 
ology became evident. Attacks were made by the 
Philippists and Calvinists even before the book was 
printed, and more so after the publication. A volu- 
minous controversial literature bears witness of the 
conflict. In the period beginning with John Gerhard, 
the whole Lutheran theology was moulded by the Book 
of Concord. In doing this the Melanchthonian 
scholasticism became supreme. The example of Me- 
lanchthon led to a traditionalistic type of Lutheranism 
which became one-sided. The school of Wittenberg- 
Leipzig was the exponent of extreme Lutheranism 
over against which the Helmstaedt school of Calixtus 
reacted. The school of Jena (especially John 
Musaeus) took a middle course, retaining everything 
Lutheran, but not emphasizing the traditional over 
against the exegetical. The endeavor to make the the- 



122 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

ology of Calovius normative through the Consensus 
Repetitus failed on account of the opposition of the 
Jena faculty. 

Pietism was in part a reaction against the unsound 
tendencies of the dominating scholasticism. The 
"fathers of pietism" (Spener and Francke) were 
strictly confessional in their theology; but their suc- 
cessors more and more abandoned the allegiance to the 
old standards of Lutheranism, because it did not agree 
with their doctrinal construction. Rationalism, the un- 
christian child of Pietism and Scholasticism, consid- 
ered the Book of Concord merely as a dead historical 
testimony as to how the Christian doctrine had been 
understood in the non-illuminated age of the Reforma- 
tion. 

In the revival of Christian life the Lutheran Church 
returned to the old declaration of the faith of the 
fathers and re-established the symbolical character of 
the Book of Concord (including the Formula of Con- 
cord). Wherever the true Lutheran doctrine gained 
the upper hand, the Formula of Concord was recog- 
nized as the correct interpretation of the divine reve- 
lation, and was again adopted, not as a dead letter, 
but as a living testimony of the fathers approved on 
account of its intrinsic value. 

25. THE AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH AND THE 
FORMULA OF CONCORD 

In the first era of the Lutheran Church in America, 
from the immigration of the first Lutheran settlers 
to the organization of the General Synod, the type of 
Lutheranism which was to be found in the new world 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 123 

was that of the home countries, that of the Formula 
of Concord. Not only the Dutch and Swedish, but 
also the German Lutheran pastors had to declare their 
adherence to the doctrine of the Lutheran Church as 
laid down symbolically in the Book of Concord. 

In the second era, from 1820 to 1840, we find a de- 
velopment of the American Lutheran Church which 
drifted away from the old standards until it found a 
formal codification in the so-called "Synodical Plat- 
form." 1 A reaction, however, set in within the Amer- 
ican Lutheran Church. The final outcome of this de- 
velopment "back to the Lutheranism of Muehlenberg" 
culminated in the reassertion of the Book of Concord. 
The General Council was the first General Body which 
recognized the Formula of Concord, together with the 
other symbolical books of 1580, as the true presenta- 
tion of the Scriptural doctrine of Luther. The fourth 
General Body, the Synodical Conference (organized in 
1872), of course knew no other standard. When the 
General Synod of the South reorganized as the United 
Synod of the South, its doctrinal basis was that of the 
Book of Concord. The Norwegian Synod (following 
the historical development of Norway) specifies only 
the Augsburg Confession; but, in fact, it stands upon 
the Book of Concord and obligates all professors of 
theology to teach in accordance with it. The United 
Norwegian Synod has the same position. The inde- 
pendent German Synods (Ohio, Iowa and Buffalo) 



^Particulars concerning the doctrinal development of Amer- 
ican Lutheranism are given in Neve, "History of the Luth- 
eran Church in America," second and revised edition. 



124 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

adopt the Book of Concord without qualification in the 
historical sense. 

When the General Synod, in 19 13, revised its 
Constitution, it declared: 

"While the General Synod regards the Augsburg 
Confession as a sufficient and altogether adequate doc- 
trinal basis for co-operation of Lutheran Synods, it 
also recognizes the Apology of the Augsburg Confes- 
sion, the Smalcald Articles, the Small Catechism of 
Luther, the Large Catechism of Luther and the For- 
mula of Concord as expositions of Lutheran doctrine 
of great historical and interpretative value, and espe- 
cially commends the Small Catechism as a book of 
instruction" (Art. III). 

Epilogue to First Part 
We have studied the general outlines of the origin 
of the Formula of Concord. Introduction into a sub- 
ject for a great many stops where it should really com- 
mence. We have merely reached the portals. More 
important than these historical facts is an acquaintance 
with the Formula of Concord itself. The writings of 
not a few scholars, lauded for their learning, show that 
their studies have not extended very much beyond 
this line. For a conscientious student the book itself 
is a main object of investigation. A true Lutheran 
student who has imbibed the " F ormalprinzip" of Luth- 
erans and made it his own, approaches the study of 
the Formula of Concord with the sincere willingness 
to accept it in case that it agrees with the Word of 
God, as the Lutheran Church testifies that it does. The 
Lutheran Church demands and exacts no other vow 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 125 

of ordination except one that is based upon the convic- 
tion that here the contents of divine revelation are 
presented in a pure and undefiled form. And this 
unity of faith is the one bond uniting all true Luth- 
erans. May the time soon come when all parts of our 
American Lutheran Church stand united internally 
on the common historical basis, the Book of Concord ! 



PART II 

The Formula of Concord Itself 

A HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE INDIVIDUAL 
ARTICLES AND AN ANALYSIS OF THE SAME 



PART I 
The Epitome 

In consideration of the almost universal criticism that the 
Formula of Concord was too cumbersome Andreae prepared 
an extract or synopsis of the main points. This is the Epitome. 
Here in each article we have: First, a statement of the con- 
troversy; secondly, the affirmation or statement of the cor- 
rect doctrine; thirdly, the negative, or rejection of false 
dogmas. 

It would be superfluous to give details here. 

PART II 
Solid Declaration 



The Formula of Concord Itself 

THE PREFACE 1 

i. The pure Lutheran doctrine was formulated in 
1530 at Augsburg; we intend to abide by that Confes- 
sion as the true symbol of our time. 1-5. 

2. Some theologians have departed from the Augs- 
burg Confession, and have thereby caused serious con- 
troversies, and have given offence to the weak. 6-8. 
These are not mere disputes about words, but contro- 
versies concerning intolerable errors. 9. 

3. It is, therefore, necessary to consider what arti- 
cles agree with the Bible and the Confessions. 10. 

THE STANDARDS OF JUDGMENT 

1. It is necessary to have some approved summary 
of scriptural doctrine, so that all writings may be 
tested by that standard. We do not intend to make 
a new confession, but will use only the old and estab- 
lished confessions. 1-2. 

2. We, therefore, confess our adherence to : 

(a) The whole Bible as the pure, clear fountain 
of Israel, and the only true standard by 
which all teachers and doctrines are to be 
judged. 3. 



1 Of this introduction Nos. 1-10 were taken from the Maul- 
brunn Formula and substituted for the Swabian-Saxon Form. 

129 



130 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

(b) The Ecumenical Creeds as brief confessions 

against the old heresies. 4. 

(c) The Unaltered Augsburg Confession as the 

symbol of our time against recent here- 
sies. 5. 

(d) The Apology as an explanation and proof of 

the same. 6. 

(e) The Articles of Smalcald as a repetition and 

expansion of the same. 7. 
(/) The Small and Large Catechisms as popular 
presentations. 8. 

3. These public writings were always considered 
short compilations of the doctrine of Luther, which 
is explained at length in his books. To these books we 
appeal as subordinate explanations of the Scriptural 
doctrine. 9. 

Other pure books are not to be rejected, but are not 
to be placed upon the same level with the above-named 
official publications of the Lutheran Church. 11. 

4. Nobody can take exception to these documents, 
since they date from the time preceding the contro- 
versies, and hence can be true standards. 12-13. 



THE ANTITHESES, OR REJECTION OF 
ERRORS 

1. It is a duty to reject all errors. Hence we must 
distinguish between useless wrangling and necessary 
controversies. 15. 

2. The aforesaid writings show what is true and 
false ; yet to make matters more distinct and to prevent 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 131 

secret errors, we reject: 

(a) All ancient heresies. 

(b) The sects and heresies condemned in the 

above-named books. 

(c) In regard to recent divisions, we shall state 

in each article the correct and the false 
doctrines. 19-20. 



ARTICLE I. CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN 
I. Historical Introduction 

It was during the disputation at Weimar (1560) that 
Flacius replied to the assertion of Strigel, "Original 
sin is accidentia, not substantia," that this was not cor- 
rect, since the substance of man has become origi- 
nal sin. This peculiar assertion was passed by and 
was not discussed by Strigel. However, the associates 
of Flacius, Heshusius and Wigand, discussed this mat- 
ter with him during the recesses. They were afraid 
that the opponents would attack their side on account 
of this statement and would call them Manichaeans. 
But other topics were of more importance to Strigel, 
so that he passed by this one phrase. Melanchthon 
more than once had called Flacius a Manichaean on 
account of similar assertions. 

The opposition of his friends induced Flacius to 
develop his views in an essay which he submitted to 
them. Simon Musaeus and his son-in-law, Heshusius, 
at first saw nothing that was essentially wrong, and 
approved the essay. But Moerlin and Chemnitz pro- 
tested in private against the theory of Flacius. The 
essay was finally published as an article in the famous 
book of Flacius, Clavis scripturae sacrae (1567). This 
moved Moerlin publicly to warn his associate minis- 
ters against the new error. This precipitated an open 
controversy among the Gnesio-Lutherans. Quite a 
number of pamphlets were published for and against 
132 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 133 

the view of Flacius. Heshusius arranged a colloquy 
in 1569, but no agreement was reached. 

Flacius had very few scholars on his side. The 
most prominent of his partisans were Cyriacus Span- 
genburg, Irenaeus, Coelestin, Wolf, Schneider, and not 
a few ministers who were of the opinion that the 
Lutheran doctrine of natural corruption could only 
thus be retained. Flacius was ostracized by his 
former pupils and friends, for they were afraid 
for their reputation if they only corresponded with 
him. When the Gnesio-Lutherans were recalled to 
ducal Saxony, Flacius was not reinstated. He asked 
in vain that his former friends should at least hear 
him. Andreae tried to settle the matter through a 
private interview at Strasburg (August 10, 1571). It 
became evident that in regard to the doctrine itself 
there was very little difference between Flacius and 
Andreae. But Flacius refused to abandon the 
phrase which was so obnoxious: "Original sin is the 
substance of man," "Man has become sin," etc. Other 
colloquies (at Mansfeld and in Silesia) were also in 
vain. Finally the city council of Strasburg requested 
Flacius to leave their territory. He found a place of 
refuge at Frankfurt, but again was ordered to leave 
this place ; death mercifully delivered him from further 
persecutions of the Philippists and Gnesio-Lutherans. 
He died on March 11, 1575. 

The controversy was fought not only by the learned, 
but also by the common people. This was especially 
the case in Mansfeld, the home of Cyriacus Spangen- 
berg. Here an insurrection finally induced this Flacian- 
ist and the count, Vollrat, to leave the city; they re- 



134 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

tired to Strasburg and adhered to Flacianism to their 
end. We h^ar here and there of ministers who were 
removed from their office on account of this heresy, 
so at Lindau, Antwerpen and Regensburg. Many- 
exiled Flacianist ministers found a new home in Aus- 
tria, since there Lutheran ministers were very scarce ; 
but they were forbidden to use the phrase "accidence" 
and "substance" in the pulpits. 

II. The Doctrine of Flacius 
In order to pass a just judgment on Flacius, we must 
take into consideration his intentions and his defini- 
tion. 

(i) The Intentions of Flacius. The assertion 
which made an end to the career of this greatest of 
Luther's pupils was uttered against the synergism of 
Strigel. The synergists assert that man has retained 
"some" natural power and capacity to apply himself 
to the will of God. This innate strength is said to be 
very weak or bound or suspended {e.g., as garlic sus- 
pends magnetism). In opposition to this view (which 
tries to ascribe to man more or less of a remnant of 
innate capability), Flacius claims that man is totally 
unable to do anything good in the eyes of God before 
conversion ; he has no power and strength ; he is as un- 
able to come to God as a dead person is to come to me. 
Yea, it is even worse : man by nature is an enemy of 
God, and all his desires and inclinations are utterly 
opposed to God. In short, the intention of Flacius 
is to retain the doctrine so plainly taught by Luther 
and expressed so splendidly in the sine et cum of the 
Augsburg Confession. This fact was recognized by 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 135 

Melanchthon, who at Worms refused to condemn 
Flacius as the Romans demanded; for, he said, they 
wish to condemn Luther's doctrine under the name 
of Flacius. But in defending the doctrine of Luther, 
Flacius fell into an error — an error of terms. 

(2) The Terminology of Flacius. As soon as 
the use of terms is understood, the matter becomes 
very plain, and the nonsensical phrase of Flacius be- 
comes intelligible. Flacius distinguishes between sub- 
stantia materialis and substantia formalis. According 
to him, the substantia materialis is that out of which 
something is composed, e.g., man is composed of body 
and soul; glass is the material substance, composed of 
certain chemicals. Every substantia materialis has, how- 
ever, existence in a certain form; this is expressed by 
Flacius through the expression, substantia formalis. 
Of glass it is either a tumbler, window pane, etc. And 
so man exists since the fall only utterly corrupted and 
utterly sinful. All men are by birth sinners. This is 
the real meaning of the phrase of Flacius. 

(3) The Real "Heresy" of Flacius. If we con- 
sider the teaching of Flacius in its true light, his error 
consists in trying to make the world speak and de- 
fine as he speaks and defines, instead of speaking 
as the rest of mankind speaks. A second error is 
that he clings to his pet phrase, and refuses to abandon 
it in favor of a better and more intelligible expression. 
We must, however, not overlook the fact that his 
pupils went beyond the master, and interpreted the 
phrase in its literal sense, and thus went more and 
more astray. 

(4) The Decision of the Controversy. In this 



136 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

article Chemnitz very skilfully solves the difficulty by 
first establishing the fact that "sin" must be distin- 
guished from man. Then a definition is given of "sub- 
stance" (self-exisring subjects) and "accidence" (ex- 
isting only in conjunction with substances). Accord- 
ing to this definition, sin is not substance, but acci- 
dence; but the terrible character of this accidence in 
man must always be emphasized. 

III. History of the Text 
In this article of the Formula Chemnitz replaced the 
draft of Andreae 1 by a new presentation of the doc- 



1 ANDREAE S DRAFT 

1. Original sin is not the work of God, but of the devil. 
All the powers of man are utterly corrupted ; not only are the 
intellect and will corrupt, but also the nature and essence 
of man are in such condition that all men are lost from 
the moment of conception. 

2. But a distinction must be made between nature of man 
and original sin ; the latter comes from the devil, the former 
from God. Hence we find in every man, nature, thoughts, 
words and deeds which are produced by God, if we consider 
them in themselves ; but these are corrupted by sin. 

3. We must also distinguish between original sin and actual 
sin ; the former is the source of all sinful acts. Luther calls 
it, for this reason, sin of nature, sin of person. 

Yet the two are not identical, since original sin is the cor- 
ruption of nature. Hence nature has not become "sin," but 
"sinful." 

4. For this reason we reject: (a) the Pelagian doctrine; 
(b) the Flacian. 

5. This doctrine is in accordance with other articles, for 
it gives all honor to God and all blame to the devil ; it does 
not belittle the corruption of man, but points it out as it is; 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 137 

trine. In doing so, he largely used as his basis the 
official resolutions passed by the Lower Saxons in re- 
gard to Flacianism. 

Nos. 1-4 was composed by Andreae; Nos. 5-34 by 
Chemnitz (based upon the Enchiridion and Corpus 
Julii) ; Nos. 35-38 is material taken verbally from the 
Maulbrunn Formula; Nos. 39-54 was composed by 
Chemnitz (same as above) ; No. 54b was added at 
Torgau, and Nos. 56-62 at Bergen: 

IV. Contents of the Article Itself 

I. THE CONTROVERSY ITSELF 

i. Some said: Man's nature and essence are sin. 1. 

2. Others said : Original sin and the nature of man 
must be distinguished. 2. 

This controversy is not unnecessary wrangling 
about words, but concerns more than one important 
doctrine. 3-4. 

II. A SHORT STATEMENT OF THE CORRECT DOCTRINE 

1. Not only are actual transgressions to be re- 
garded as sins, but the deep and terrible corruption of 
man's nature is the root and source of all actual 
sins. 5. Hence man is by his birth sinful and under 
the condemnation even before he thinks, speaks or 
commits evil. 6. 

2. Not God, but the devil, is the author of original 
sin (cf. Art. 19 of the Augsburg Confession). Neither 
does God create sin within us, but with the nature 
which God creates sin is propagated. 7. 



it glorifies the merit and atonement of Christ, who alone has 
rescued us. 



138 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

3. The true character of original sin can be learned 
only from revelation. 8. 

4. The correct doctrine is briefly outlined in the 
Apology, which shows : 

(a) The universality of sin; (b) the negative side, 
namely, lack of original righteousness; (c) the posi- 
tive side, a fathomless corruption; (d) the penalty, 
eternal condemnation; (e) the only remedy: Christ, 
whom we receive in baptism and by faith. 9-15. 

III. REJECTION OF ERRORS CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN 

(a) Pelagian and Pelagianicing errors: 

1. That original sin is only a debt, without corrup- 
tion (Zwingli). 

2. That evil lusts are not sin, but natural conditions 
(Scholastics). 

3. That original sin is not really a condemning sin 
(Same). 

4. That nature is incorrupt and perfect (Same). 

5. That original sin is only a slight blemish (Syner- 
gists). 

6. That it is merely an external impediment (Syner- 
gists). 

7. That man has not entirely lost all power in spir- 
itual things (Synergists). 

All these errors are contrary to the Scriptures. 
16-25. 

(b) The Manichaean error: Since the fall, original 
sin has been infused into human nature, which has 
been created good. The error is rejected: 

1. For sin did not enter into Adam in this way, but 
he was perverted and corrupted. 27. Since then 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 139 

human nature has been sinful and corrupt from the 
very first moment. 28. 

2. The two must be distinguished in such a way as 
to teach that human nature is good by itself, but only 
the original sin within it is evil. 29. 

3. Because of the corruption, the entire human 
nature is subject to damnation, and is accused. 31-32. 

IV. THE PROOF FOR THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN 
NATURE AND SIN 

1. The article of creation : God creates man, but not 
sin. 34-42. 

2. The article of redemption : Christ has assumed 
human nature, but not original sin. 43-44. 

3. The article of sanctification : God cleanses us 
from sin, but we retain our nature. 45. 

4. The article of resurrection: We shall rise with 
our nature, but without sin. 46-47. 

Conclusion : Hence the identification of nature and 
sin is an error. 48-49. 

V. DECISION IN REGARD TO EXPRESSIONS 

1. General principle : It is best to follow the expres- 
sions used by the Scriptures and the above-named 
symbolical books. 50. 

2. The different terms : 

(a) "Nature" is an ambiguous word, and may 
mean either the essence, as, for example, 
of God, creatures ; the nature of man is 
his body and soul ; or, the disposition, e.g., 
it is the serpent's nature to bite. 51. 



140 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

(b) "Original sin" has different meanings; (i) 

It designates the deep corruption of human 
nature (Smalcald Articles). 52. (2) It 
also means: sinful from the beginning (so 
Luther). 53. 

(c) "Substance," "accident." In sermons these 

terms should not be used; in school work 
they may be employed, but should be care- 
fully explained. 54a. 

Here "substance" means: independent exist- 
ence, and "accident" existing only with in- 
dependent essences. 54b. 

Then sin is not "substance," but an "accident." 

55-59 

But what a horrible accident ! No human reason 
can fathom this unspeakable evil. 60. 

If explained in this way, the terms are not harm- 
ful. 61. 

(d) Luther used the terms "accident" and "qual- 

ity," but always described sin as a horrible 
corruption. 62. 






ARTICLE II. CONCERNING FREE WILL 
I. Historical Introduction 

I. LUTHER AND MELANCHTHON 

Luther had learned a great deal from Augustine, and 
had become a faithful pupil of that Church Father. In 
adopting from him the doctrine of original sin and 
the corruption of human nature, he also took over 
Augustine's doctrine of absolute predestination. It is 
a question about which historians (both old and new) 
do not agree as to how far Augustine's predestinarian 
views were accepted by Luther. Melanchthon was 
more outspoken in his first edition of the Loci (1521) ; 
he plainly declared that everything occurs by necessity ; 
that the sin of Saul, as well as the conversion of David, 
was caused by God. The strongest expressions of 
Luther occur in his De servo arbitrio. In the contro- 
versy concerning the word and sacraments with the 
enthusiasts and sacramentarians, Luther became clear 
as to the importance of the means of grace for the be- 
liever. He emphasizes the sole efficacy of grace, but 
finds the cause of unbelief and damnation merely in 
the self-hardening of the human heart against these 
means through which God works. 

Melanchthon at the same time began to emphasize 
the universal promises of the Scripture; he emphati- 
cally denies the freedom of the natural will to pro- 
duce ethical good works, but rejects the absolute pre- 
destination of Augustine. He emphasizes the fact 
141 



142 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

that predestination does not contradict the universal 
promises, but does not define the relation between the 
two. His great esteem of the old teachers of the. 
Church induces him to adopt their terminology as 
much as possible. At the same time he rejects the 
assertions of Schwenkfeld and other enthusiasts; like- 
wise he rejects the deterministic statements of Fla- 
cius. All these factors must be kept in view in consid- 
ering the doctrine of Melanchthon. He confesses to 
his end in the most emphatic terms the sole efficacy 
of divine grace; he rejects expressly the synergistic 
interpretation given to his words used in the Variata. 

2. DID MELANCHTHON TEACH SYNERGISM? 

In considering this historical question one must not 
forget the fact that Melanchthon, in the later part of 
his life, used the terms regeneratio and conversio in a 
different sense from his previous usage. He had de- 
fined conversio in former years as contritio et fides 
(see Apology, Art. 12). This would include the work 
of God up to the moment of justification. But he 
changed this definition in the last period, and inter- 
preted the same terms as contritio, fides et bona opera. 
By doing so he included the whole Christian life under 
the term conversio, approaching thereby the Roman 
terminology. It is in this last period that he used the 
expression that three causes (factors?) concur in con- 
version (concurrunt tres causae in conversione, etc.). 
Chemnitz, who surely was capable of passing upon this 
question, does not hold him guilty of having taught 
synergism, but accuses him of using ambiguous terms. 

Hence it is difficult to answer the above question 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 143 

concerning Melanchthon's view. As he himself ex- 
pressly states, he had abandoned absolute predesti- 
nation. We, therefore, leave this historical question 
undecided whether he really went to the other extreme 
and adopted synergism. It certainly has not been 
established beyond reasonable doubt. 

3. THE SYNERGISTS 

But there can be no question that the pupils of Me- 
lanchthon, even during his lifetime, defended the am- 
biguous phrases of their teacher, and openly adopted 
synergism as their doctrine. Pfeffinger (Leipzig), 
in a disputation, plainly asserts that there are three 
efficient causes (tres causae agentes) ; the third of 
these is said to be the will of man which does not 
resist but adapts itself to the working of the spirit. 1 
He states that there must be within us some cause, 
why some assent, whilst others do not assent. 

4. THE SYNERGISTIC CONTROVERSY 

The statements of the synergists were soon chal- 
lenged by the Gnesio-Lutherans (Amsdorf, Flacius, 
Stoltz). In the Weimar Confutation of 1559 the sixth 
article 2 condemned the synergists for teaching that the 



1 Voluntas non repugnans, sed utcunque jam movent* 
spiritui sancto obtemperans. 

Sequitur ergo in nobis aliquam causam esse, cur alii as- 
sentiantur, alii non assentiantur. Melanchthon had said, re- 
cipiantur . . . abjiciantur. 

2 Qui argute philosophantur, mentem et voluntatem hom- 
inis in conversione esse synergon, seu causam concurrentem 
et cooperantem. 



144 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

mind and will of man in conversion co-operates, and is 
a concurrent cause. But a difference soon showed it- 
self among the Jena theologians : Victorin Strigel re- 
fused to accept this condemnation. The Duke of Sax- 
ony arranged the Weimar Colloquy '(August 2-8, 
1560). Here Strigel most emphatically formulated 
and defended his synergistic views. Flacius and his 
associates, Musaeus, Wigand and Judex, opposed him. 
They — champions of Congregationalism — soon fell 
into disfavor with the duke, because they denied his 
right to dictate to the Church and to change the or- 
ganization (he appointed a consistory which should 
decide all controversies). They were dismissed from 
their offices. Strigel gave an explanation which molli- 
fied his asertions and was reinstated. Stoessel com- 
posed a similar confessional statement in which he 
tried to end the matter by ambiguous declarations; 
many ministers preferred leaving the country to sign- 
ing the document. A change soon came through the 
imprisonment of John Frederick the Second (on ac- 
count of complicity in the Grumbach affairs), and 
John William recalled the Gnesio-Lutherans (Wigand, 
Coelestin, Heshusius, Kirchner, and others), with the 
exception of Flacius. Now the attacks upon the syner- 
gists were renewed. 

Finally the Elector August proposed to settle this 
and other controversies by means of a colloquy. The 
offer was accepted. The colloquy of Altenburg was 
unique in its method ; all negotiations were carried on 
in writing. No wonder that it dragged on from Octo- 
ber, 1568, to March, 1569, and finally was discontinued 
by the Philippists. 



I 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 145 

5. THE DECISION OF THE FORM OF CONCORD 

As in other matters, the statement of the question 
(status contr oversiae) is of prime importance. By 
clearly defining the question, the solution of the diffi- 
culty was made possible. "Conversion" is here under- 
stood as the "repentance wrought solely by God in 
the unconverted." It is taken to include contrition and 
faith. The question is then considered: Does the 
natural man contribute anything whatever to the con- 
trition and faith that rise in his heart? The ethical 
or psychological process of conversion is not the topic 
under discussion, but merely the question: Whence 
this change? How much, if any, must be ascribed to 
the natural man ? How much must be ascribed to the 
Holy Spirit? All this must be kept in view in order 
to understand this article. 

II. History of the Text 
The article as drafted by Andreae was very plain 
and simple. It was composed of a number of state- 
ments "in which the essential points were brought out. 
Chemnitz made many additions to the text, but 
adopted the statements of Andreae as a whole (see 
below). The text, as laid by Chemnitz before the 
Lower Saxons, did not fully satisfy them. They de- 
sired that this article should be revised very carefully. 
They referred it to the conferences held in the various 
cities for discussion; these conferences should then 
submit their •criticisms and proposals to the faculty 
at Rostock. A number of documents were mentioned 
which should be taken into consideration in revising 
the article, such as Chemnitz, Enchiridion and Judi- 



146 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

cium, and a disputation held at Rostock in March, 
I572. 1 

Chytraeus, the leading theologian at Rostock, aban- 
doned the draft of Andreae revised by Chemnitz, and 
composed an entirely new article, which he substituted. 
Only a few fragments of the previous draft were 
taken over by him. Chytraeus was rather voluminous 
in his presentations. In fact, his article was very, 
very long. The universal complaint was: it is alto- 
gether too long. For this reason the whole first three 
parts of the article were condensed at Torgau into a 
few paragraphs. It is to such changes that he refers 
when he complains in his letters that "everything" 
he wrote was cast out. However nothing essential 
was expunged; only non-essential parts were omitted. 

In the opinions submitted at Bergen scarcely any 
other article was discussed as much as this article. It 
was very carefuly considered, and important changes 
were made. The criticisms of the Wuertemberg theo- 
logians were most practical, since they always pre- 
sented a better formulation of the passages which they 
criticised. 

III. The Composition of the Present Article 2 
The article as it stands now originates from: 



1 The disputation has not yet been examined or published. 
It would be highly instructive to know at least the theses, 
and, if possible, the declarations of this disputation. 

2 THE DRAFT OF ANDREAE 

I 

I. Statement of the question : the synergistic view ; the cor- 
rect doctrine. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 147 

i-ya ( — "working anything"), Bergen; 70-15, Chy- 
traeus; 16 (except last sentence, Bergen, upon motion 
of Wuertemberg) ; 17-27, Chytraeus; 28-45, Maul- 
brunn Formula, inserted at Torgau; 46-55a, Chy- 



2. To decide this controversy the various conditions of 
man must be considered: 

(a) Before the fall man was perfect in his will and 
acts. 

(&) Through the fall he has lost his perfection, and is 
without power, and is at enmity with God. Hence 
he disobeys, and even opposes God. Now his 
natural will is free only for evil; in external acts 
he is, to some extent, free to do the acts of the 
natural law; but in spiritual things he can do ab- 
solutely nothing. 

(c) In the word of grace the Holy Spirit is present. 

working true conversion; thus new life begins. 
Yet the old nature remains. Hence the continuous 
strife between the old man and the new will. 

(d) After man's resurrection his will is free and he is 

perfect. 

II 

1. In the second state, before his conversion, man has 
lost all power to will and to do good; his will is turned 
away from God. 

2. It is God who changes man's will; not forcibly, but 
through the law and gospel as the two means of conversion. 

3. This work of conversion is in no way our work, but 
wholly God's work. 

4. By this doctrine we exclude despair (coming from ab- 
solute predestination) and epicurism (waiting for forcible 
conversion). God desires to save all; hence all should hear 
the word, and the preachers should depend upon God's prom- 
ise. 

5. Those who despise the word thereby prevent their con- 



148 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

traeus ; 55b, "but should be certain . . . give," written 
by Andreae ; 56, addition of Chemnitz to the draft of 
Andreae; 57-58, Andreae; 59-64, Bergen (substituted 
for a similar passage by Chytraeus) ; 65, Chytraeus; 



III 
Antithesis: 1. Against Synergism. 2. Against Enthusiasm. 

THE FIRST PART OF CHYTRAEUS's ARTICLE 

(for which Nos. i-7a were substituted) 

The real question is : Since man is not a stone, etc., but is 
free in external affairs, whether he has the capability also 
in conversion, to know God correctly, to understand and 
accept the gospel, and to convert himself. 

By emphasizing total depravity a controversy was occa- 
sioned concerning this question: When the Holy Spirit calls 
a sinner, has the sinner so much power remaining within 
him that he can follow, can convert himself or can co-operate, 
can give assent, etc.? 

It is very important to show, from the word of God, how 
and whence this power comes to man. This article, there- 
fore, is closely related to other articles, e.g., those relating 
to the state of innocence, of original sin, redemption, the 
causes of conversion, justification, and the application of 
grace, the law and true obedience, external discipline, new 
obedience, the difference between external and internal right- 
eousness. 

In order to defend this doctrine against the Pelagians we 
will discuss: 1. What is free will? 2. What can free will 
do by its own natural power after the fall? 3. What cannot 
free will do by its own power? (cf. 7b-27). 4. How is man 
converted by the Holy Spirit? (cf. 46-64). 5. Of the co- 
operation of the liberated will (cf. 65-72). 6. Antitheses and 
explanation of various phrases (cf. 73-90). x 



1 This disposition is explicitly formulated, and is of the 
greatest importance in studying our article. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 149 

66, Bergen (substituted for a similar statement by 
Chytraeus) ; 67, Chytraeus; 68, Bergen (for passage 
by Chytraeus) ; 69-72, Chemnitz (in revising An- 
dreae's draft) ; 73-85, Chytraeus (with numerous 
changes made at Torgau and Bergen) ; 86-88, Bergen 
(substitution for shorter statement by Chytraeus) ; 89, 



I. WHAT IS FREE WILL? 

Free will designates the intellect, heart and will, with all 
the psychical powers within man. Here two questions are 
often confounded: 1. Has man a free will? 2. What can 
free will do? Here the four conditions of man must be 
considered. 

The question arises : In what particulars can man do some- 
thing? In what can he not? 

1. Before the fall man had the true knowledge of God, 
and was righteous in his will. He obeyed without reluctance, 
and could choose good or evil. 

2. After the fall he lost this power, and now lives in sin. 
This is expressed by such terms as, the natural or old man, 
flesh, human heart, free will, carnal inclinations, etc. This 
is man as he is born with his natural reason and will. 

II. WHAT CAN FREE WILL DO BY ITS NATURAL POWER AFTER THE 
FALL? 

In this state man has, to some extent, the capacity to pro- 
duce works of external honesty (compare the lives of the 
Pharisees) ; but this is not righteousness before God. The 
civil government may and shall forbid gross sins. 

Man's freedom and power are hindered: 1. By original sin; 
2. By evil enticement from without ; 3. By the deception of the 
devil. 

But man may resist, to some extent, and may produce ex- 
ternal honorable works, in some measure. 

III. WHAT CANNOT FREE WILL DO BY ITS OWN POWER? 

Our eyes can see in bright sunlight the things close at 



150 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

Chytraeus (a free translation of a Latin passage added 
by Chemnitz) ; 90, Bergen (substitute for long passage 
by Chytraeus). 

IV. Contents of the Article Itself 
1. the controversy 

1. Where is the controversy? 

Distinguishing four states of man the controversy 
concerning "free will" is — not concerning man's con- 
dition before the fall or since the fall in external things, 
or after regeneration, or after resurrection; but con- 
cerning man's condition since the fall in spiritual 
things. 

2. What is it? 

Some say: Man can assent to a certain extent 
(synergists). 

Some say: Man is converted forcibly without 
means (enthusiasts). 

The teachers of the Augsburg Confession say : Man 
is by nature blind (sine), an enemy of God (cum), 
until God converts him through the Word. 

II. The Affirmative Statement 
1. a brief synopsis (6-7) 
1. Man can do nothing at all towards his conver- 
sion — sine. 



hand ; but if we look directly at the sun, we are blinded. 
Similarly man can do external works to some extent; but 
by his own power he can do nothing in real spiritual matters, 
such as acquiring liberation from sin and eternal death, true 
righteousness and holiness, etc. 

In these matters the natural man cannot understand any- 
thing correctly, cannot believe, etc., but is entirely corrupt 
and unable to do good (see continuation in 7b). 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 151 

2. Man is a slave of sift, and active only in things 
contrary to God — cum. 

2. DETAILED PROOF FOR THESE STATEMENTS 

(A) What can man's natural "free will" contribute 
towards his conversion (Ante conversionem) . 

1. He can contribute nothing in spiritual matters, 
according to the Scriptures (sine). 

(a) General description: blind, receiveth not, 
foolish, heareth not, etc. 9-1 1. 

(b) Specific statements: cannot think, compre- 

hendeth not, etc. 12-14. 

(c) Even after conversion he can do little; what, 

then, before? 15-16. 

2. He is against God, perverted to every evil (cum). 

(a) Assertions of Scriptures. 17-18. 

(b) He is compared to a hard stone, i.e., he can 

contribute as little as a stone — nothing. 
19-24. 

3. Conversion, when it occurs, is assigned exclu- 
sively to God. 

(a) This is the doctrine of the Scriptures in 

many passages, 26, and of Augustine. 27. 

(b) It is the doctrine of the Lutheran Symbolical 

Books. 28-44. 
Conclusion : The doctrine of co-operation is an 
error. 45. 

(B) How does God convert man? (In conversione). 

The manner and process of conversion must be ex- 
plained in order to refute the enthusiasts and to give 
consolation to desponding hearts. 46-47. 



152 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

We must observe: (i) Through what means (Word 
and sacraments) man is converted; (2) How he should 
act towards these means. 48. 

I. HOW CONVERSION IS BROUGHT ABOUT 

(a) We must start our observation from the uni- 
versal plan of salvation. 49. 

(b) We know that the Word is God's medium for 
working contrition and faith. 50. 

(c) The external use of these means is necessary 
and possible for every sinner. 53-54. 

(d) Through these means God works: (a) Contri- 
tion through the law, breaking the heart, etc. (b) 
Faith through the gospel — drawing, etc. 54. 

(e) This must be accepted upon God's assertion, 
not because we see, notice or feel it. 55-56. 

2. HOW CONVERSION IS PREVENTED 

(a) By refusing to hear the Word and despising 
it 57-58. 

A stone cannot do this, but man can prevent God's 
work, 59, even though he cannot contribute in the 
least. 59a. 

(b) For God does not compel those who harden 
their hearts, though His working is a divine power. 60. 

(c) The manner of working (modus agendi) is that 
adapted to rational beings. Even after conversion God 
does not force man to do good. 61-64. 

(C) What can man do after conversion? (Post 
conversionem) . 

1. After conversion man can co-operate. 65-66. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 153 

2. But the will is still weak during this life. 67-69. 

(a) For in conversion a change is effected 

through contrition and faith, so that now 
good works are brought forth. 70. 

(b) But the question is: Whence come these 

powers? Answer: They are not man's 
own, but are wrought by God. 71-72. 

3. ANTITHESES 

The intricate questions respecting this doctrine can 
be answered from the above clear statements. We re- 
ject the following errors: 

1. The Stoic and Manichaean views of fatal neces- 
sity. 74. 

2. The various shades of Pelagianism. 75-79. 

3. The views of the Enthusiasts. 80-85. 

4. CRITICISM OF VARIOUS STATEMENTS 

1. Certain expressions of Basil and Chrysostom 
were used in a synergistic sense, and must be rejected; 
for God is the sole author of conversion, in the man- 
ner defined above. 86-88. 

2. Luther's expression, pure passive, does not mean 
that no new emotions are aroused, but that man is 
simply subjectum patiens. 89. 

3. The phrase of the "three causes" perplexed, 
especially, the students. It was shown above that there 
are only two causes (Spirit, Word). Man's will is 
no cause, but the object (that which is to be con- 
verted) and merely suffers God to work in him (pas- 
sively). 90. 



ARTICLE III. CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION 
I. Historical Introduction 

A controversy was occasioned by Andreas Osiander. 
He was one of the leading Lutheran ministers of 
Nurnberg (1522 and later). During the diet of 1523, 
held in this city, the Master of the Prussian Knights, 
Albert of Brandenburg (who at that time tried in vain 
to enlist the interest of Germany against Poland, which 
claimed supremacy over the territory governed by the 
Knights) attended Osiander's services at St. Sebal- 
dus, the beautiful church of Nurnberg. He was won 
for the cause of the gospel. At the advice of Luther 
he secularized the territory, and submitted to the king 
of Poland, receiving his dignity as Duke of Prussia 
from him. Osiander had been one of the leading 
co-laborers of Luther; he represented Nurnberg at 
Marburg, Augsburg and Smalcald. 

When, in 1548, the Augsburg Interim was forced 
upon the southern cities, he protested against its adop- 
tion by the city council, and, therefore, had to leave 
the service and territory of the city. His spiritual son, 
Duke Albert, offered him the position of superin- 
tendent and professor at Koenigsberg, with double 
salary (1549). Osiander had never taken any aca- 
demic degrees. This, and the especial favor shown 
him, as well as his overbearing manners, soon pro- 
duced strained relations in the theological faculty. 
When, therefore, Osiander proposed his peculiar 
154 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 155 

construction of the doctrine of justification, a con- 
troversy at once broke out. Osiander found 
very few adherents. Professors Hegemon, Isin- 
der and Lauterwald opposed his views, as did Martin 
Chemnitz (at that time librarian of the duke), 
Moerlin and Aurifaber. Pamphlets were issued by 
both sides. In order to settle the matter, the duke 
asked other prominent theologians, especially Melanch- 
thon, Flacius and Brenz, for their opinions. All, with 
the exception of Brenz, who took a milder view, de- 
clared that Osiander had abandoned the doctrine of 
Luther. Osiander died October 17, 1552. His son-in- 
law, Funk, represented his side; but he meddled in 
politics, was accused of high treason and was ex- 
ecuted. 

Osiander's doctrine was a reminiscence of me- 
dieval mysticism, which sought immediate intercourse 
with God through feeling. Osiander approached 
these views without adopting them. 

Osiander's Construction. According to Osiander, 
Christ is the personified righteousness of the divine 
essence. He was destined to live in man, and would 
have become God-incarnate even if man had not fallen. 
He atoned for the sin of the world. Through faith He 
comes into the human heart as His habitation. Thereby 
He works our justification ; for as the starlight disap- 
pears before the bright rays of the sun, so sin disap- 
pears before the superabundance of the divine right- 
eousness inhabitating the heart. On the other hand, 
this personified righteousness impels and produces 
within man the will to do works of righteousness. 
Hence "justification" is the change of life through 



156 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

the inhabitation of Christ. Osiander does not directly 
deny the judicial act described by the Scriptures as 
justification; but it is of no great importance for him. 
He does not reject the obedience of Christ and atone- 
ment; but they are insignificant when compared with 
the indwelling of Christ. For Osiander "justification" 
is not a divine act of one moment, but a gradual pro- 
cess. In other terms, Osiander confounded justifica- 
tion and sanctification. His error does not consist in 
the individual assertions, which are in the main cor- 
rect, but in his theological construction and combina- 
tion. An unruly spirit, Stancarus, on the other hand, 
made the statement that only Christ's righteousness as 
man is attributed to the believer. 

The Importance of the Controversy. The sig- 
nificance of the Osiandristic controversy was that it 
induced the theologians to study the question of the 
relation of conversion, justification and sanctification. 
They now had to define the limitations of these terms 
and the distinctions between them. In doing so they 
returned to the exact terminology of the Scriptures, 
whereas they had formerly used some of these terms 
in a narrower and wider sense. 

II. History of the Text 

The framework of this article is the draft furnished 
by Andreae. Additions were made to this at almost 
every succeeding revision. There were almost no 
eliminations. 

The text before us comes from the following sources : 
Nos. 1-2, Andreae; 3-4, Torgau; 5-7, additions of 
Chemnitz (quotation from Luther in No. 6 was added 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 157 

at Bergen) ; 8-9, Andreae's work revised by insertion of 
terms; 10-14, Chytraeus; 15, Bergen; 16, Chemnitz; 
17, Andreae; 18-19, Torgau; 20-21, Bergen; 22, based 
upon Andreae, but largely revised by Chemnitz, at 
Torgau and by Chytraeus; 23a, Chemnitz; 23^25, 
Chytraeus; 26-27, Chytraeus (quotation from Luther 
added at Bergen) ; 30, Chemnitz (last sentence by 
Andreae); 31, Chytraeus; 32-41, Chemnitz (with 
various later changes); 34-35, Andreae; 42-43, Chy- 
traeus (with revision at Bergen) ; 45-53, Chemnitz 
(translations added at Torgau) ; 54-66, Andreae, with 
later additions; 67, Torgau. 

III. Contents of the Article 

I. THE CONTROVERSY 

Some (especially Osiander) : The righteousness of 
faith is the personal righteousness of the second per- 
son of the Trinity; we receive this through the per- 
sonal inhabitation; by means of which all human sin 
vanishes from sight. 1-2. 

Others (Stancarus) : Christ is our righteousness 
only according to His human nature. 3. 

The Augsburg Confession : Christ is our righteous- 
ness as the God-man. Justification consists in forgive- 
ness of sin, imputation of Christ's righteousness, and 
acceptance as God's children for the sake of Christ, 
whom we receive through faith. 4. 

Note : Besides this controversy, the Interim has also 
produced errors (see antitheses, 49-53). 5. 

Note : This is the fundamental article of Christen- 
dom, and must be retained in its purity. 6-7. 



158 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

2. STATEMENT OF THE CORRECT DOCTRINE 

I. A short restatement of the doctrine of the Augs- 
burg Confession. 

(a) A sinner is justified (i.e., receives forgive- 

ness, is accepted as God's child) without 
any previous or subsequent merit, exclu- 
sively out of pure grace, because of the 
sole merit of Christ, accepted through faith, 
which is produced by the gospel. 9-12. 

(b) Faith justifies, not because it is a good work, 

but solely because it accepts the merit of 
Christ. 13-15. 

(c) This application comes through the gospel 

and the sacraments. 16. 
The term "justify." 

(a) It means here: "to absolve for the sake of 

Christ." 17. 

(b) Sometimes other terms are used instead of 

justify." 18. 

(1) "Regenerate" is used sometimes to 

designate "justification" and "sancti- 
fication" taken as a unit. 

(2) "Regenerate is also used as a synonym 

for "justify" (thus in the Apology). 
20a. 

(3) "Vivify" is also used in the sense of 

"justify." 20b. 

(4) "Regenerate" is sometimes used exclu- 

sively for "sanctification." 21. 
3. Justification in its relation to contrition and good 
works (justification, conversion and sanctification). 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 159 

(a) Regeneration and justification do not imply- 
that we have no more sin, but that sin is 
covered, and that we are accounted pure 
before God. 22. 

(&) It does not imply that we may continue in 
sin, but true contrition precedes, and good 
works follow. 22-53. 

(1) Contrition precedes; the contrite are 

adopted and receive the Holy Spirit. 

(2) Good works are produced, though they 

remain imperfect. 

(3) But contrition and good works must 

not be identified with justification. 

(4) Hence there is true consolation, and all 

glory is given to God. 

3. CONCERNING INHABITATION 

It is true that the Holy Trinity dwells in the Chris- 
tian heart; but this inhabitation is not the righteous- 
ness of God on account of which we are justified; for 
it follows after the gracious forgiveness and adop- 
tion. 54. 

How is Christ our Righteousness? 
1. Not on account of only one or the other nature; 
but on account of the entire Christ. 55. 

(a) As merely man His righteousness would not 

help us. 56. 

(b) Neither would the divine nature alone help 

us. 56. 

(c) But the whole Christ, the God-man, is our 

righteousness. 56. 



160 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

2. As Christ's righteousness and atonement are per- 
fect, faith relies upon it. 57. Thus neither the divine 
nor the human nature in itself is imputed, but only 
the obedience of the God-man. 58. 

4. ANTITHESES. 59-66 

We reject the following errors : 

1. That the divine nature alone justifies us. 

2. That the human nature alone justifies us. 

3. That in the Scriptures the word "justify" does 
not designate a declarative act, but means "to make 
righteous by the infusion of love," etc. 

4. That we are justified by the inhabitation. 

5. That faith may be in a man who has no repent- 
ance and persists in sin. 

6. That not God, but only His gifts, dwell in the 
believer. 

Conclusion : The best detailed statement of the doc- 
trine of justification is to be found in Luther's Com- 
mentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. 67. 






ARTICLE IV. CONCERNING GOOD WORKS 
I. Historical Introduction 

George Major (born 1502) was educated at Witten- 
berg, and at first taught at the Magdeburg and 
Eisenach High Schools. He was called as pastor and 
professor to Wittenberg in 1536, and remained there 
(with a short intermission) until his death in 1574. 
He took part in the negotiations which produced the 
Leipzig Interim. He openly defended the course of 
the Saxon theologians, and assumed the responsibility 
for the statement contained in this Interim : "Good 
works are necessary unto salvation." The statement 
of the Interim is : "As now this true knowledge (faith) 
must shine in us, so it is assuredly true that these 
virtues, faith, love, hope, and others, must be within 
us, and are necessary unto salvation." 

When Flacius and Amsdorf attacked this sentence, 
Major defended it, declaring: "But this I do confess, 
that I have taught before this, and do teach yet, and 
intend to teach all the days of my life, that good works 
are necessary to salvation. And I declare openly 
and with clear and explicit words that nobody ever is 
saved without good works, and I further say, whoso- 
ever teaches otherwise (even an angel from heaven) 
shall be accursed." 

When he was called in 1552 as superintendent of 
the Mansfeld churches to Eisleben, Amsdorf, Wigand 
and Flacius challenged his declaration. He now de- 
161 



162 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

clared that in this sentence he spoke against those who 
made faith the cloak for evil works. He did not mean 
to say that the good works earn or deserve salvation, 
or were the righteousness before God, or formed a 
part of the same. He meant that they are the fruit 
and consequence which must follow faith, and that 
Christ works within the believers a new life. He re- 
peatedly declared that he abandoned the sentence; so 
in 1559, 1567 and 1570. But he was considered as the 
exponent of this error until his end. 

In 1554 Justus Menius, superintendent in Gotha, re- 
fused to sign a declaration in which the books of 
Major were denounced, because he had not read them. 
He imagined that the sentence probably was meant in 
a better sense. The result was that he himself had to 
give a statement in regard to his own conviction at a 
convention at Eisenach in 1554. He rejected the state- 
ment in foro justificationis, but considered it correct 
in foro legis. He considered it advisable not to use this 
expression in any connection, since it might be mis- 
understood. But at the same time he emphasized the 
fact that man must be diligent in good works after 
justification. This declaration was satisfactory to most 
Gnesio-Lutherans. But Amsdorf retained his sus- 
picions that Menius secretly retained the error of 
Major. In consequence of this, Menius, in 1556, re- 
moved to Leipzig, where he died two years later. 

Amsdorf, in his opposition to Menius, formulated 
the statement : "Good works are detrimental unto 
salvation." But the old man was treated very leniently 
by his associates, since it was apparent that he did not 
really mean what he said. It was clear that he meant 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 163 

to say: If anyone relies on his good works, then he 
loses salvation. 1 

The Form of Concord very correctly points out the 
fact that at first there was a mere wrangling for words 
and phrases, but that later on the ambiguous phrase 
was defended in a wrong sense. The words "neces- 
sity" and "salvation" could be used in more than one 
sense. 

II. History of the Text 

In this article Chemnitz abandoned the draft of 
Andreae after Nr. 9. He substituted a delineation of 
his own. 

1, Andreae, amended at Bergen; 2-3, Chemnitz; 
4-5, Torgau; 6, Andreae; 7-8a, Chemnitz (in 8, first 
sentence); 8b-9, Andreae; 10-12, Bergen; 13-28, 
Chemnitz, with later minor changes; 29, Chytraeus; 
30, Chemnitz; 31-33, Chytraeus; 34-35, Chemnitz, re- 
vised by Chytraeus ; 36, Torgau ; 37-40, Chemnitz, with 
Torgau amendments. 

III. Contents of the Article 
1. the controversy 
Various assertions : "Good works are necessary for 
salvation." 1. 

Orthodox doctrine : "Good works are necessary, but 
not for salvation." 2. 



1 The bitterness of that time is illustrated by the following 
occurrence. Shortly before Amsdorf died he received the 
visit of his former associate and friend, Major, and the two 
conversed for a short time, as much as you can converse 
with a person almost entirely deaf (Amsdorf). Some there- 
after had suspicions for this reason that he inclined towards 
Majorism. 



164 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

Others said: "Good works are injurious;" others: 
"They are voluntary." 3-5. 

2. AFFIRMATIVE EXPLANATION 

1. There is no controversy on several points. 7-9. 

(a) It is God's will that good works should be 

done by believers. 

(b) These are not works of man's choice, but 

works commanded by God. 

(c) These can be done only after conversion. 

(d) They are acceptable to God (though imper- 

fect), since the person is accepted. Whilst 
merely external works are good before the 
world, they are yet sinful before God. 

(e) They must be the fruits of faith. 9-12. 

2. The controversy concerning "necessity" and 
"freedom." 

(a) The Apology and the Augsburg Confession 
often state that good works are necessary ; 
also the Scriptures say the same. They 
show what is God's command and order. 
14. 

(1) It is incorrect to condemn this. 

(2) Thereby merely Epicurean ideas of a 
dead faith, which produces no fruits or 
bad fruits, are rejected. 15. 

(3) This is the necessitas mandati non co- 
actionis, that is, of command, not coercion. 
16-17. 

In this sense good works are "free" or "vol- 
untary," since they are done willingly, but 
not arbitrarily. 17-21. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 155 

(b) Good works do not acquire salvation for us. 

(1) Works must not be introduced into the 
doctrine of justification. This would be 
against the exclusive particles ("alone," 
"only"), and would overthrow the certainty 
of salvation. 23. 

(2) It would be against the doctrine of St. 
Paul and the Augsburg Confession. Hence 
Luther correctly rejected similar proposi- 
tions. 24-28. And hence such phrases also 
now must be rejected. 29. 

(c) Good works do not retain salvation. 

( 1 ) It is false to teach that salvation cannot 
be lost by willful sins. 31-33. 

(2) It is not true that faith makes the be- 
ginning of salvation and works continue 
it; this is done exclusively by faith. 34. 
Hence the Tridentine and similar declara- 
tions must be condemned, viz., that our 
works support salvation, or do so in part. 

35- 
Before the controversy some spoke care- 
lessly; but we should retain the "form of 
sound words." 
3. Are good works injurious to salvation? 

(1) If one trusts in works, they are detri- 
mental; but it is not the works, but his 
trusting which harms. 37. 

(2) Yet such phrases are misleading, as God 
demands and the Holy Spirit produces 
works in the believers, works acceptable to 
God. 38-40. 



ARTICLES V AND VI. CONCERNING THE 
LAW AND THE GOSPEL 

The Antinomistic Controversies 

John Agricola (Schneider), born 1492 (or 1496), 
at Eisleben, had begun his studies at Leipzig, but was 
attracted by Luther, and finished his studies (1516-19) 
at Wittenberg. Being an intimate friend of Melanch- 
thon he took his theological degree with the young pro- 
fessor of Greek September 15, 15 19. In 1525 he ac- 
cepted the position of instructor in one of the schools 
of his home town, hoping to be recalled to Wittenberg 
when a new professorship of theology would be 
created. But Melanchthon was promoted to this posi- 
tion in 1526, arousing the envy of Agricola. 

In 1527 Melanchthon wrote the instructions for the 
visitation of the Saxon churches. These were a short 
presentation of the Lutheran doctrine and instructions 
to the priests for preaching and directing the people. 
Agricola took exception to the statement contained 
in these instructions that the ministers should also 
preach the law in order to bring people to repentance. 
Agricola's opinion was that repentance is produced 
not by the law, but by the gospel. Luther mediated 
between the two, and the matter was dropped. But in 
a catechism which Agricola published soon afterwards 
he again presented his view: The Old Testament is 
an ineffectual endeavor of God to lead men by means 
of threats. Repentance is produced by the gospel and 
166 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 157 

faith. Luther declared : Previous to repentance there 
must certainly be "general faith" (accepting the exist- 
ence of God), but justifying faith accepts the grace 
of God under the terrors of conscience produced by 
the law. 

The First Antinomistic Controversy. In 1536 
Luther succeeded in having Agricola called to Witten- 
berg as professor of theology. But rumor soon reached 
Luther that Agricola was privately circulating theses 
in which he proposed peculiar statements concerning 
repentance, which were directed against Luther's teach- 
ing. Similar statements were published in other cities 
(Saalfeld, Frankfurt, Brandenburg, Freiburg). Luther 
privately called Agricola to account, but received satis- 
factory assurances. But soon Luther heard that Agri- 
cola was about to publish secretly a short explanation 
of the gospel pericopes; and in these he found the 
antinomistic views of Agricola. 1 

Luther now publicly discussed theses which Agri- 
cola had spread privately. When Agricola refused to 
take part in these discussions and to be instructed, 
he was suspended from office. This induced him to 
discuss the matter in private with Luther. He con- 
ceded that he had been wrong, and promised to con^ 
fess in public. He did so at the next disputation. 
But before the whole matter had been settled he re- 
ceived a call as court preacher to Brandenburg, which 
call he accepted. 

It was Agricola who accepted the appointment by 



l This induced Luther to make the short statement con- 
cerning "false brethren" in the Smalcald Articles. 4-7. 



168 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

Emperor Charles to compose the Augsburg Interim, 
in which he claimed to have attained concessions from 
the Catholics which Luther could not attain. He im- 
agined that through these articles the Roman Church 
would be speedily "reformed." He really never aban- 
doned his antinomistic views, although he did not 
openly proclaim them. 

The Second Antinomistic Controversy. The 
negotiations with Menius (see Art. 4) produced a 
second antinomistic controversy. Andreas Poach, of 
Jena, and Anton Otto stood on the side of Amsdorf 
and opposed the teaching of the law as directive for 
the good works of the Christians. Statements as these 
were made : "The best art of the Christians is to know 
nothing of the law," "Evangelical preachers must 
preach the gospel and no law," "Law, good works, new 
obedience do not belong to the kingdom of God, but to 
the world, to Moses and the dominion of the pope," 
and other similar statements. 

Against these antinomistic tendencies of their asso- 
ciates the other leaders of the Gnesio-Lutherans took 
issue (especially Flacius, Moerlin, Wigand, West- 
phal). They declared: The law of God has a three- 
fold duty: 1. To produce outward righteousness 
among the ungodly through threats and promises (usus 
legis politicus). 2. To produce contrition in the heart 
of the sinner, so that in the terrors of conscience he 
will accept the grace of God offered to him in Christ 
(usus legis paedagogicus). 3. The usus legis didacti- 
cus: After the sinner has been converted and has been 
made a child of God the law serves him as a guide and 
canon in the service of God. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 16 9 

The antinomistic teachers denied that this knowledge 
was to be gained from the law. They claimed: This 
is taught by the gospel, not by the law. The new works 
must come voluntarily and must be produced by the 
gospel. 

The Third Controversy. A similar position was 
held by the later Philippists. Melanchthon had very 
often used the term "gospel" instead of the term 
"word of God" (of which the gospel is the most im- 
portant part). Thus he had stated in the Variata: The 
ministry of teaching the gospel, which preaches re- 
pentance and forgiveness of sins. 1 This statement was 
understood and defended by Pezel and others in its 
literal sense, and they contended that "the gospel is 
the preaching of repentance." Judex, Wigand and 
Stoessel wrote pamphlets against this confusion of law 
and gospel. 

The Decision of the Form of Concord. Article 
V of the Form of Concord solves the difficulty by de- 
fining the terms "repentance" and "gospel." Art. VI 
shows the work of the law after conversion. 



1 Ministerium docendi evangelium, quod praedicat poeniten- 
tiam et remissionem peccatorum. 



ARTICLE V. CONCERNING THE LAW AND 
THE GOSPEL 

I. History of the Text 

This article presents in 1-9 the text of Andreae, with 
minor changes by Chemnitz and Chytraeus, and two 
minor additions at Bergen. 10-11 is an addition made 
at Torgau preceding the Maulbrunn Form in 12. 13 
was added at Bergen. 14-15 was composed by Chy- 
traeus. 16-27 i s tne continuation of Andreae's text 
into which 18 and 19 were inserted by Chemnitz. The 
last sentence in 19 and 22 is an addition made 
at Bergen. Minor changes (almost entirely additional 
text) were made by Chemnitz. The last sentences in 
27 were written by Chytraeus. 

II. Contents of the Article 
/. The Controversy 
Some : The gospel is not only the preaching of grace, 
but also the preaching of repentance. 

Others: The gospel is not the preaching of repent- 
ance (the law), but only of the grace and favor of 
God for Christ's sake. 1-2. 

II. Preliminary Remarks 

This controversy arises from the fact that the terms 
"gospel" and "repentance" are used in a wider and 
narrower sense. 

170 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 171 

1. In a wider sense "gospel" means the Word of 
God as preached in the New Testament. 4-5. In a 
narrower sense (the proper one) it means: the blessed 
message of God's grace. 6. 

2. In a wider sense "repentance" means the whole 
conversion, viz., contrition and faith. 7. In a narrower 
sense it means only contrition. Christ must preach the 
law to the sinner, 10-na, before He can bring the gos- 
pel, lib. They must be treated together. 12-15. 

III. Affirmative Statement 

1. The law, in its strict sense, is the divine revela- 
tion of God's will, wrath and punishment regarding 
sin. 17. It also condemns unbelief. 18-19. 

2. The gospel, in its strict sense, is the divine revela- 
tion of God's grace in atonement, forgiveness and sal- 
vation. 20. 

(a) Everything that comforts and offers grace is 

"gospel," and everything that threatens and 
condemns is "law." 21-22. 

(b) These two were preached from the begin- 

ning and must be preached to the end. 23- 
26. 

IV. Antithesis 
We reject any construction which confuses the law 
and the gospel. 27, 



ARTICLE VI. CONCERNING THE THIRD 
USE OF THE LAW 

i. History of the Text 

Here 2-14 present the text of Andreae, with minor 
phraseological additions by Chemnitz and Chytraeus. 
1 is substituted for a shorter form of Andreae; this 
was done at Torgau. 10, 11a and 12a were inserted 
by Chytraeus. 15-19 are additions of Torgau. 19, 
23-26 are by Andreae. 21 is by Andreae amplified 
by Chytraeus, who also inserted 22. 

2. Contents of the Article 
/. The Controversy 
Some say : The law must not be preached to Chris- 
tians, as they fulfill the will of God as they are im- 
pelled by the Holy Spirit. 1-2. 

Others say: The law must be preached to Chris- 
tians so that they may serve God, not by works of 
their own choice, but by works which He demands 
from them. 3. 

II. Affirmative Statement 
I. The law is indispensable for holiness of life. 

(a) Christians, being freed from the curse of 

the law, should learn from the law how to 
serve God. 4-5. 

(b) If they were absolutely renewed, they would 

172 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 173 

not need the law, 6, but since renewal 
has only begun, and they still have the old 
Adam, they need also the law and its in- 
struction, warning and punishment. 7-9. 

2. Distinction between the works of the law and the 
fruits of the Spirit : 

(a) The law demands newness of life, but gives 

no power to produce it. 11. 

(b) The gospel brings the Holy Spirit, and 

renews men's hearts, instructs them 
through the law, admonishes, and, if they 
sin, punishes them. 12-14. 

(c) The unregenerate can produce only the 

works of servants, while the regenerate, as 
children of grace, produce works as fruits 
of the Spirit. 15-17. 

(d) Christians, having both the old and the new 

man, experience the strife between them. 
18-19. 

3. The necessity of the law for the believers. 

(a) Lest they invent works of their own, they 

need the revelation through the law, as to 
what they should do. 20. 

(b) Lest they imagine that their obedience of the 

will of God is perfect, they need the law. 
21. 

(c) Since these imperfect works come from a 

believing heart they are, as the gospel 
shows, acceptable to God as fruits of faith. 
22. 

(d) In so far as they are regenerate, they do 

God's will willingly; in so far as they are 



174 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

unregenerate, they do it under the compul- 
sion of the law, until they reach perfection 
in the future life. 23-25. 

777. Antithesis 
We reject the doctrine that the law must be preached 
only to the unregenerate and not to Christians. 26. 



ARTICLES VII AND VIII. CONCERNING THE 
LORD'S SUPPER AND THE PERSON OF 
CHRIST. 

Historical Introduction 

i. the position of melanchthon 
Dr. Frank says : "It may be confidently stated as a 
historical fact that Melanchthon never came to full 
clearness or lasting conviction in the conception of the 
dogma of the Lord's Supper — neither in the former 
nor in the latter period of his life." And this state- 
ment — endorsed also by Schmid in his excellent mon- 
ograph on the controversies concerning the doc- 
trine of the Eucharist — is correct. Melanchthon en- 
deavored to formulate this doctrine as simply and as 
plainly as possible. And he did so in an ideal way in 
the Augsburg Confession. But he was always influ- 
enced in his view, to a large degree, by other scholars 
and formulated their productions. Hence it made a 
deep impression upon him when (Ecolampadius (the 
Melanchthon of Zwingli) absolutely established the 
fact that many old teachers had taught similarly to 
Zwingli. What did Luther care for what scholars had 
said and taught in ancient times, when he had the clear 
word of God ? But for Melanchthon the matter is of 
scholastic importance ; for this reason he tries to pro- 
duce formulas which make it possible also to retain 
the historical assertions of antiquity. For him it is 
not in the first place a matter of faith (being certain 
175 



176 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

from the Word of God), but of theological science. 
His scholastic inclination predisposes him to modify 
the ecclesiastical contradictions as much as possible. 

His general tendency can be noticed, above all, in the 
doctrine concerning the sacrament. When he com- 
posed the Augsburg Confession, he still fully shared 
the position of Luther, and was merely the amanuensis 
or interpreter of the great Reformer. But the histori- 
cal proof of (Ecolampadius soon made a deep impres- 
sion upon him, as stated above. Therefore he wavered, 
and was less confident in opposing the Reformed 
teachers. The historical facts can be briefly formu- 
lated in these statements: 

i. Melanchthon changed his personal views con- 
cerning the Eucharist. 

2. This change took place after 1530. 

3. He never openly stated this fact. 

4. He professed until the end of his life to believe 
the doctrine as confessed in Augsburg Confession of 
1530, as well as that of the Smalcald Articles. 

The modification which did take place, however, was 
not that he denied the fact of the real presence, or that 
he abandoned the doctrine of recognizing the true and 
essential presence of the body and blood of Christ, or 
that he abandoned the manducatio indignorum. But 
he preferred to go no further in presenting the doc- 
trine than to state : "Christ is truly and substantially 
present" (1558), or, "He is truly and corporally 
present in the sacrament" (1560). He lays the main 
emphasis on the benefit and blessing of the sacrament, 
emphasizing the manducatio spiritualis more than the 
manducatio oralis. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 177 

Melanchthon to the end of his life was and re- 
mained as emphatic as Luther in rejecting the rational- 
istic conception of Zwingli; but when Calvin adopted 
as much of the true conception as was possible for him, 
without sacrificing his principal doctrine (predestina- 
tion), he was willing to make peace with him. And 
his main endeavors during the time that he was at the 
head of the Lutheran forces were engaged in coining 
unionistic phrases which would be acceptable to both 
Luther and Calvin. He became the exponent of 
unionism. 

2. THE REFORMED POSITION 

The Reformed had come to an agreement acceptable 
both to the Calvinists and Zwinglians, in which the 
Zwinglians, to a large degree, sacrificed the views of 
the Reformer of Zuerich. The document dogmatizing 
this agreement was the Consensus Tigurinus of 1549. 
Here not only the view of Zwingli was expressed that 
bread and wine in the celebration of the Eucharist re- 
mind us of Christ's death and benefits, but also the 
deeper views of Calvin that they are signs and tokens 
of God for the believer. Christ in this ceremony com- 
municates Himself to us as the true spiritual bread. 
Calvin even used the phrase that we partake of the 
body and blood of Christ; but this phrase expresses 
for him, not the real presence of the body and blood, 
but the fact that we are made participants of the bene- 
fits of Christ. In other words : A spiritual influence 
is exercised by the glorified Christ which is mediated 
through the Spirit of Christ and the faith of man. 
The body of Christ remains in heaven, is locally con- 



178 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

fined to heaven to the day of judgment. The believer 
through faith rises to heaven and comes into commu- 
nion with the glorified Saviour. Hence the doctrine 
of Calvin (dogmatized in this Consensus Tigunnus) 
is merely a modification of Zwingli's doctrine, and 
Luther's doctrine is rejected. The roots and founda- 
tions of this sacramental view lie in the last instance 
in the doctrine of predestination. For if God from 
eternity decreed to save only a chosen number of man- 
kind, then the sacrament can in no way be the seal and 
token of salvation and an assurance of grace to all 
men through faith. God would lie to the individual 
if He would assure every communicant that Christ s 
body was broken and Christ's blood was shed for him 
since only the chosen few have been ransomed and 

saved. . . . 

After establishing the Zwinglian-Calvimstic concep- 
tion through the Consensus Tigurinus, the policy of 
the Reformed Church was to spread their dogma in 
Switzerland as well as outside of it. The Wittenberg 
Concord was thereby abolished. Even before the Con- 
sensus Tigurinus was printed, Calvin stated that he ex- 
pected it would be beneficial also for the churches in 
the electorate of Saxony. A systematic propaganda 
was enacted. It was inevitable that the Lutheran 
Church must either surrender Luther's doctrine to 
Calvinism, or that a clash must take place. 

3. THE WESTPHAL CONTROVERSY 

The first one in the Lutheran camp to sound an 
alarm was Joachim Westphal, a prominent minister 
in Hamburg. In 1552 he proved from the official and 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 179 

public writings of the Reformed theologians that they 
were united in denying the Real Presence of Christ's 
body and blood; that otherwise there were many dif- 
ferences among them. Reduced to plain facts, they 
denied the Real Presence no less emphatically than 
Zwingli had done. The only difference consisted in 
whether this view was plainly and frankly stated, or 
hidden behind words and phrases approaching the 
Lutheran terminology as much as possible. 

The practical effect of this pamphlet was that a con- 
gregation of Reformed refugees was not permitted 
to locate in Denmark, Rostock, Wismar, Luebeck or 
Hamburg. Calvin himself now entered the arena and 
wrote three violent treatises. 1 The tenor of these 
treatises is exceedingly rude, overbearing and arro- 
gant. Everyone knows that Luther not infrequently 
was rude and coarse ; but Calvin here is insolent and 
boisterous. The replies of Westphal did not in every 
way go to the point, but, taken as a whole, they were 
moderate and exact, and in tone even modest. They 
at once proved that Luther's doctrine had not yet been 
abandoned in Germany, even if the leader (Melanch- 
thon) did not defend it. From all sections of Ger- 
many assent was given to Westphal. The theologians 
of Wuertemberg (who had not taken sides in the other 
controversies) soon took sides with Westphal. Under 
the leadership of Brenz and young Andreae they de- 
clared (1557) for the unmodified doctrine of Luther. 
This chagrined Melanchthon, but he could merely at- 

1 A few samples of the tone and tenor : "This foolish, ven- 
erable doctor, who has issued an evil book." "Is he not like 
a mad dog?" "This master of confusion," etc. 



180 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

tack the poor Latin in which Brenz had drawn up the 
statements. 

4. THE BREMEN CONTROVERSY 

From the Westphal phase another controversy orig- 
inated in Bremen. Here Hardenberg had found a 
home in 1547. He came from the humanistic circles, 
had been influenced by John a Lasco, and had assisted 
Bucer (1544- 1547) in Worms. He was requested in 
1548 to define his view and to clear himself of suspi- 
cion, but had then succeeded in deceiving the city 
council by ambiguous phrases, approved by Melanch- 
thon. His associate, Timann, in 1555, took sides with 
Westphal, and spoke of crafty men who thought un- 
Lutheran in Lutheran phrases. This induced Harden- 
berg to attack the doctrine of ubiquity. He published 
the alleged assertion of Luther that he had "done too 
much in the eucharistic controversy." Melanchthon 
was asked for information, but answered very indefi- 
nitely. But the theologians of Lower Saxony warned 
against the views of Hardenberg, and he left Bremen. 
Heshusius. the champion of Lutheranism just then ex- 
pelled from Heidelberg, was called to Bremen. He 
arranged a colloquy with Hardenberg, who refused to 
take part. When he tried to evade the consultations 
with the theologians of the allied Lower Saxon cities, 
he was dismissed and had to leave Lower Saxony. 
Through a civil revolution in Bremen (1562), 
van Bueren was chosen burgomaster, and expelled the 
Lutheran clergy and filled the vacancies with Philip- 
pistic men. Finally these went over in a body to the 
Reformed Church. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD igl 

5. THE CONTROVERSY IN THE PALATINATE 

In the Palatinate the elector, Ottheinrich, had called 
Tileman Heshusius, in 1558, at the suggestion of Me- 
lanchthon. He considered it to be his especial duty 
to stem the Reformed influences which were gaining 
strength in that border state. He offended the com- 
mon people by discontinuing the customs introduced 
by the Crypto-Calvinists, and by introducing Lutheran 
customs. He was also opposed by the Crypto-Calvin- 
ists holding positions at the University of Heidelberg. 
In 1559 Ottheinrich died. Scandalous clashes oc- 
curred. 1 The new elector deposed both Heshusius and 
Klebitz. Melanchthon advised him to prescribe in- 
definite formulas to both parties. Thus misled, the 
elector, who was inclining more and more towards the 
Reformed side, finally went over formally to the Re- 
formed Church, and made Heidelberg a home of the 
Reformed in Germany. He also "reformed" the Luth- 
eran Church by changing all Lutheran forms and sub- 
stituting the new Heidelberg Catechism for Luther's 
Catechism. Thus, in 1566, immediately after the 
Naumburg Day, Palatia left the Lutheran ranks and 
joined the Reformed side. 

6. THE CRISIS IN SAXONY 

Elector August of Saxony, the brother and suc- 
cessor of Maurice, was a well-meaning man. He loved 



1 Heshusius refused to administer the sacrament with the 
assistance of the Crypto-Calvinist Klebitz ; when Klebitz, 
nevertheless, came to the altar to administer the cup, he took 
it away from him. Klebitz, on his part, waylaid the super- 
intendent before the church doors in order to wallop him. 



182 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

his country, and did the best for its interests, so that 
he was generally known as "Father August." But he 
was no genius, neither as diplomat, nor as theologian. 
He meant well, much better than he acted. In the the- 
ological troubles of his time he hated with a bitter 
hatred Flacius and his party. For Flacius had brought 
into bad report, not only the great Melanchthon, but 
all Saxon theologians and his brother Maurice. August 
swore vengeance, and took it. The lifelong misery of 
poor Flacius, with his flock of children, is explained 
not to the least by the fact that whenever he had found 
a haven of rest, the diplomatic agents of August soon 
succeeded in driving him on. In the elector's eyes the 
greatest possible heresy for a Lutheran was to be a 
Flacianist. 

Of one thing there can be no doubt : Elector August 
had the earnest desire to be a Lutheran. He did not 
dream of the possibility that there could be doctrinal 
differences between Melanchthon and Luther. Had 
not Melanchthon also declared— even shortly before 
his death— that he adhered to all the teachings of 
Luther? And no doubt this question was also dis- 
cussed orally between them. The attack of the Fla- 
cianists on Melanchthon, therefore, also hit him per- 
sonally. But the younger teachers, trained under Me- 
lanchthon, were accused already during the lifetime of 
their master of abandoning Luther's doctrine in several 
articles. The danger that such might really take place 
was greater after the old teacher's death; now they 
could draw the full conclusion from their preambles. 
Melanchthon died April 19, 1560. Already in Decem- 
ber of that year August interviewed his theologians 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 183 

in regard to the views on the doctrine of the Lord's 
Supper. Paul Eber, the successor of Bugenhagen, 
formulated it for the faculties of Wittenberg and Leip- 
zig. This statement, which was to inform the elector 
whether they sided with Luther or Calvin, was inten- 
tionally misleading. It rejected the doctrine of Zwingli 
in unmistakable terms, and rejected those that denied 
that the body and blood of Christ are really present in 
the Eucharist. It asserted that the Flacianists attacked 
them because they refused to believe that the body of 
Christ is essentially pnesent in the bread (impanation) 
and is received with the mouth even by the infidels. 
The elector did not know anything of the doctrinal 
difference between Zwingli and Calvin, and at that 
time the Calvinists were generally spoken of as "Zwin- 
glians" ; he did not know that Calvin tried to accom- 
modate his expressions, as far as possible, to the terms 
of Luther ; he did not know that Calvin also spoke of 
a real presence of Christ for the believer in the Eucha- 
rist. But these theologians knew the difference. And 
thus they knowingly, willingly, intentionally deceived 
the elector. In the hour of confession they acted as 
hyprocrites. Instead of confessing their convictions, 
they professed to teach the doctrine they had sworn 
to when they took their degrees and their orders. 

And the longer they debated with their theological 
opponents, the more they besotted themselves with 
such conscious untruthfulness. For instance : In 
Transsylvania a controversy arose; there Crypto- 
Calvinists clashed with Lutherans. At a meeting at 
Medwish (January 10, 1560) each side presented a 
doctrinal statement to the prince, who was a Lutheran, 



184 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

and would tolerate none but the Lutheran doctrine in 
his Lutheran territory. How could he find out whether 
the suspected party was really Lutheran? He turned 
to the university of Luther. And here again the uni- 
versities of the largest Lutheran state knowingly dis- 
simulated. They did not answer plainly and distinctly : 
Of the two statements presented to us, this is the 
Lutheran doctrine, and this is not. They formulated 
a statement of their own, which was so skillfully 
worded that even strict Lutherans were misled, and 
thought for once they outlined the Lutheran view. 
But a very close examination (in the light of similar 
statements) shows their deception. The University 
of Rostock alone gave a clear and correct answer. 

Now, the charge made above that these professors 
of theology were hypocrites, and knowingly, willingly 
and intentionally misled the elector, is the most seri- 
ous charge that can be raised. It implies that they 
were guilty of perjury. For these men were sworn 
when they took their degrees and when they were ex- 
amined for ministry. We know the oath which they 
took ; it had been formulated by Luther, Melanchthon 
and Jonas. It reads : 

"I promise to the eternal God . . . that by the 
help of God I will faithfully serve the Church in 
teaching the gospel without any corruptions, and will 
steadfastly defend the Apostolic, Nicene and Athana- 
sian symbols and will persevere in the consense of 
the doctrine which is comprehended in the Augsburg 
Confession, which has been presented to the emperor 
in the year 1530. And in case that difficult and ob- 
scure controversies should take place, I will not give 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 185 

my opinion alone, but only after I have consulted with 
some older men who teach in the Church who retain 
the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession." 1 

This oath was also sworn by those who took degrees 
in philosophy, since they also lectured in theology. 
Melanchthon himself had defended this very same 
oath against Osiander with the argument that the 
Church must protect itself against the danger of teach- 
ers substituting new doctrines for those of the Church. 
It is Peucer (himself a leader of the "Philippists," 
or, rather, hypocritical Calvinists) who explicitly tells 
us that these men — including himself — knew at that 
time that they had abandoned the doctrine, which they 
had promised by oath to teach and to uphold. He 
narrates that (either 1561 or 1562 — the date is not 
quite certain) Paul Eber came to him and asked 
him how he should act in the new interrogation which 
the elector demanded. Paul Eber then and there told 
Peucer that he believed the doctrine as taught by 
the "Swiss" (Calvin) was correct. Paul Crell told 
him the same thing. These theologians also knew — 
and that was why they asked the leader of their fac- 
tion — that they would be deposed from their offices 



1 Ego promitto Deo aeterno . . . Deo adjuvante, fidcliter 
scrviturum esse ecclesiae in docendo evangelio sine ullis cor- 
ruptelis et constanter defensurum esse Symbola Apostolicum, 
Nicaenum et Athanasium et persevaturum esse in consensu 
doctrinae comprehensae in C. A., quae per hanc ecclesiam 
exhibita esse imperatori anno 1530. Et cum incident contro- 
versiae difficiles et obscurae non pronuntiabo solus, sed 
re deliberata cum aliquibus senioribus, qui docent ecclesias 
retinentes doctrinam A. C. 



186 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

(and, perhaps, be punished more severely for their 
hypocrisy in the past) Peucer told them to confess 
their conviction. But they went to Dresden and again 
knowingly posed as Lutherans, when they knew that 
they were Calvinists in doctrine. These professors 
of theology were guilty of a crime which in theocratic 
Israel would have been punished by death. 

Now, it is a fact well known that you may deceive 
some people all the time, and you may deceive all the 
people sometimes, but that you cannot deceive all the 
people all the time. These Crypto-Calvinists never 
succeeded in deceiving a man as acute and suspicious 
as Flacius. They succeeded in deceiving Andreae for 
some time, but not for all time, for he found them 
out as hypocrites at Zerbst and afterwards. Their 
hypocrisy became more and more apparent to the 
Lower Saxons and the suspicions of others. They 
succeeded in deceiving the elector so long that he be- 
came almost the laughing stock of his time. He was 
warned again and again not only by the Flacianists, 
but also by others who did not go with Flacius. But 
the deceivers finally unmasked themselves. 

We will not go into detail of their duplicity. 1 They 
satisfied the elector of their "Lutheranism," and had 
contrived to get men of their stripe into the professor- 
ships : Pezel, Cruciger, Jr., and Widebram. They 



1 When a request similar to that of Transsylvania came 
from Hungary; in a treatise of 1563, by Paul Eber; in an 
opinion on the Heidelberg Catechism (because the Heidel- 
berg Calvinists openly stated that the Saxon theologians 
taught as they did) ; on the statement of Brenz and Andreae 
in 1564. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD igy 

succeeded in inducing- August to make their Corpus 
Philippicum the official confession of Saxony {Corpus 
Misnicum). They had succeeded so well that they 
now felt safe in going a step further. So far their 
Calvinism had been taught only in the university halls ; 
it was now to be introduced into the preparatory de- 
partments. In the high schools (Gymnasien) either 
Luther's Catechism (which was too easy) or Melanch- 
thon's examination questions for candidates for the 
ministry (which were too difficult) had been used as 
text-books. Pezel wrote a new text-book (in many 
respects an excellent book for this purpose), Cate- 
chesis Witebergensis (1571). Here the distinctively 
Lutheran doctrines were supplanted by Calvinistic. 
The storm of protest aroused by this book {e.g., Chem- 
nitz wrote a pamphlet against it, unmasking its true 
character) induced the elector to quash it and forbid 
its use. The theologians defended themselves in sev- 
eral pamphlets, and especially the Grundfeste. Again 
they succeeded in deceiving the elector. But from 
outside a flood of pamphlets denounced their defence 
as un-Lutheran. This induced the elector to summon 
them to Dresden, October 10, 1571, where they should 
present a definite and complete confession concerning 
their doctrine of the Lord's Supper. They presented 
the Consensus Dresdensis, composed by the Witten- 
berg faculty and approved by the theologians sum- 
moned. They used the trick of presenting their doc- 
trine in the words of Luther, followed by some ex- 
pressions of Melanchthon from their symbolical book 
{Corpus Misnicum), interpreting the clear words of 
Luther by the indistinct phrases from Melanchthon in 



188 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

a Philippistic and Calvinistic sense. They very care- 
fully avoided such questions as the communion of the 
unbelievers. 

By this trick the elector was fully convinced that 
his theologians were sound in doctrine and were merely 
martyrs of "Flacian" persecutions. He could not be- 
lieve that these professors of theology were such hor- 
rible hypocrites. 1 And when, in 1573, he became the 
guardian for the two sons of Duke John William of 
Saxony, he had his chance to get even with the Flaci- 
anists : he at once deposed the Flacianist professors 
at Jena and appointed Philippists in their places. He 
demanded that all ministers should sign a statement 
that they accepted the Consensus Drcsdensis, and 
would read no Flacianist books; those that refused 
were deposed and driven from the country. 2 

The Crypto-Calvinists now were convinced that they 
had won their case, and they considered it timely 
to take another step, though still cautiously. They 
published a book in which their "platform" was fully 
outlined. It was the "Definite Synodical Platform" of 
the Crypto-Calvinists of the sixteenth century. The 
title was Exegesis perspicua et ferme Integra contro- 
versiae de sacra coena. 

This Exegesis was published at the time when An- 
dreae was busy in recasting the contents of his "Six 



1 Only one thing puzzled him: The Heidelberg Calvinists 
were reported to him to have said: This Consensus fully 
agrees with the Heidelberg Catechism. But then the theolo- 
gians assured him that this was not correct. 

: This caused so many vacancies that August could not get 
enough students at Wittenberg and Leipzig to fill them. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 189 

Sermons" into the "Swabian Concordia" (see above). 
Only two pamphlets were published against it (by 
Wigand and Heshusius) ; but everyone was alert for 
what would now take place. From all sides came let- 
ters directing the elector's attention to this bold at- 
tack on the Lutheranism of Saxony. The Count of 
Henneberg, an aged friend of August, did not con- 
sider his age nor the hardships of a journey in spring, 
and came in person to have a heart-to-heart talk with 
the prince who was so shamefully deceived by his most 
trusted theological advisers. And then came the 
severe judgment of the criminals as told elsewhere. 

7. THE EXEGESIS PERSPICUA 

The book (1) opens with a discussion of the doc- 
trine of the person of Christ; it then (2) discusses the 
sacraments in general and the Lord's Supper in par- 
ticular (positively and negatively), and (3) finally a 
programme of what should be done is outlined. 

(1) The Doctrine of the Person of Christ. In 
Christ two natures are united in one person ; both are 
unmixed also in the glorified Christ. His body re- 
mains a human body, and retains all the peculiarities 
of a human body — except that previously it was an 
animal body, whilst it now is a spiritual body. Hence 
the properties of one nature can be asserted only of 
the concrete person, e.g., Christ suffered and is om- 
nipotent (this means: He suffered according to His 
human nature, is omnipresent according to His divine 
nature). There is no communication of the properties 
of one nature to the other. Consequently His pres- 
ence on earth consists merely in His being efficient in 



190 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 



the believers in Word and Sacrament. 

(2a) The Sacraments in General. These are vis- 
ible signs instituted as seals of the promise and testi- 
monies of the universal grace applied to the individual 
believers. Baptism is the seal of implantation into 
Christ, and the Eucharist is the token and seal of con- 
tinuous nourishing. Christ thereby testifies His will 
to be present for them, to fill them with life and to 
raise their bodies for eternal life. But this presence 
is only a presence of His divine nature ; for the human 
nature is in heaven and afar from us. The divine 
presence is not bound to the sacrament. By this pres- 
ence the communication in the sacrament is a spirit- 
ual and not a bodily one. This spiritual communica- 
tion is the spiritual union of Christ's divinity with us, 
and not a communication of Christ's body. 

(2b) The Lord's Supper in Particular. It may 
be defined as a ceremony in which, with the visible 
gifts, a communication of Christ's body takes place — 
that is : Christ is present for the believers, and assures 
them that it is His will to make them His members 
and make His habitation within them. Hence the 
Eucharist is more than a mere memorial of an absent 
Christ; it might be called a substantial presence (that 
is: He is really present to work within us, as really 
present as the Holy Spirit is present in His work). 

Christ deals with us, and not with the bread and 
wine; hence the question regarding the union of 
Christ's body and blood with bread and wine is fool- 
ish. 

The words of institution were always interpreted 
by the old Church that Christ testifies that we should 






THE FORMULA GF CONCORD 191 

receive forgiveness of sin and eternal life. We must 
assume here a synekdoche (naming a part and mean- 
ing the whole), and, vice versa, a metonymy (naming 
the cause and meaning the effect). Hence only an 
efficiency is meant. As Christ had spoken before the 
institution of the sacrament of His efficiency within 
the disciples, they knew that this ceremony was to be 
a seal of this promise and not a real gift differing from 
the gospel. The words "this is my body" are inter- 
preted by "the cup is my blood of the new testa- 
ment," which Paul interprets as "the communion of," 
etc. He does not say : the bread is the true, essential 
or substantial body of Christ, but the bread is an ex- 
ternal, visible material by which communion results 
between us and the body of Christ. He opposes it to 
the meals of the heathens : they come into communion 
with idols; we with Christ. Hence he speaks of a 
communion between Christ and the believers. This 
phrase is really a better expression than the one used 
in the Augsburg Confession for the same idea. The 
idea that the ungodly receive the body and blood of 
Christ in the sacrament has its origin in the Roman- 
ist doctrine of transubstantiation. But if there is no 
direct relation between the symbols and Christ's body, 
the whole question collapses by itself. And if the 
communion of Christ is the essential part, then the 
consequence is that it has been instituted only for the 
believers, and the seal of fellowship with Christ is of 
no use for the ungodly. 

Rejection of False Views. Luther was drawn 
into the eucharist controversy by those who considered 
the sacrament merely as visible signs and tokens of 



192 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

human profession (Zwingli). The other side (Re- 
formed) saw the error of this leader. But the Luth- 
eran side (in attacking the former and abandoned 
error) continued to fight against those that now teach 
better. It retained some ideas which arose from tran- 
substantiation, and refused to abandon them. Already 
Luther had fallen into this mistake, but more so those 
that came after him. The latter relapsed more and 
more into the Romanist error, and now speak of a 
union of the body with the bread. This is wrong, as 
is also the Lutheran doctrine of the commnnicatio 
idiomatum, by which the reality of Christ's human 
nature is denied. 

(3) Practical Suggestions. We must not adhere 
too tenaciously to the author who founded the Protest- 
ant Church (Luther), but must allow room for the 
better insight which came later (Melanchthon, Cal- 
vin). Reference is made to the flourishing condition 
of the Church in Reformed countries. There schools 
and congregations prosper, and there is a truly Chris- 
tian life. Their doctrine agrees with that of the an- 
cient Church. They have a great number of martyrs. 
Should we condemn them since they do not agree with 
us in this single and solitary point? 1 And even here 



1 This shows how old this misconception is, which is so 
often uttered in our days. The fact is. the agreement is only 
an imaginary one, and the whole system of doctrine is funda- 
mentally different from the Lutheran. This is the case with 
the ancient (mostly abandoned) Calvinistic system. The great 
mass of Reformed teachers have no system of doctrine, but 
concoct their own doctrine eclectically from Calvinism, Armin- 
ianism, Zwinglianism and Rationalism. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 193 

we agree in respect to the use of the sacrament. The 
only difference is the one in question : Is the human 
body of Christ present in the Eucharist? Here — with 
all due respect to Luther — we must concede that, in 
the heat of the controversy, he not rarely went be- 
yond limits, and it would be better to follow those 
whom God had placed alongside of him (Melanchthon, 
Calvin) who spoke more correctly. 

Until a synod has definitely decided the controverted 
points, the doctrine of ubiquity and the eating of 
Christ's body by the ungodly should be dropped and 
a definite formula should be used: "the bread is the 
communion of the body of Christ." In more detailed 
statements we should use the expressions and ex- 
planations of Melanchthon. These are better than the 
terms used in the Augsburg Confession, for when he 
wrote the Augsburg Confession he did not see as 
clearly as he did later. 



ARTICLE VII. CONCERNING THE LORD'S 
SUPPER 

The Development of the Text 

Chytraeus rewrote this article (like the second). 
The style shows this at more than one place (compare 
the involute sentence, 43-48). The article as finally 
received into the Formula of Concord presents: 1. 
Andreae's draft enlarged by Chytraeus; 2-3, Chy- 
traeus; 4-5, Torgau; 6-19, Chytraeus, with a very few 
additions at Torgau ; 20-32, Malbrunn Formula ; 33-90, 
Chytraeus, with a few changes at Torgau and Bergen ; 
91, Bergen; 92-98, quotation already adduced by An- 
dreae; 99-103, Chytraeus; 104-105, Bergen (proposed 
by "Wuertemberg) ; 107-108, Andreae's draft largely 
amplified by Chytraeus; 109-128, Chytraeus, with very 
few later changes. The omissions are noted in the 
synopsis of the contents. 

II. The Contents of This Article 

INTRODUCTION 

The sacramentarians withdrew from us at Augs- 
burg in 1530 by presenting their own Confession. Of 
late some of our theologians have (partly in public) 
given assent to the Reformed doctrine, and yet have 
pretended that the Augsburg Confession is in harmony 
with their views. Therefore we must show what is 
the true Scriptural doctrine and the genuine sense of 
the Augsburg Confession. 1. 
194 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 195 

I. THE CONTROVERSY 1 

A. The Doctrine of the Sacramentarians 

1. The sacramentarians accommodate their words 
to the expressions of the Augsburg Confession, but 
when forced to declare themselves, deny the Real 
Presence in the sacrament. 2-3. 

2. Their different position is as follows : 

(a) At first they considered the sacrament ab- 

solutely no more than a confessional act 
for Christians. 4a. 

(b) Then they said that Christ is present, viz., 

according to His divine nature. 4b. 

(c) Then they said: The body of Christ is 

present, that is, we partake of His power, 
efficacy and benefits. 5. 
By using the words "truly," "essentially," etc. 
(which they interpret as: through faith 
and not really), many have been de- 
ceived. 6. 

3. Their exegesis of the words of institution. 

(a) "Eat" means "believe." 

(b) "Body" means "sign," "figure of Christ's 

body in heaven." 

(c) "Is" must be understood figuratively. 7~8a. 

4. Their rejection of Luther's doctrine. 

They deny that the body of Christ is present here 
upon earth ; that it is in the sacrament essentially, al- 
though invisibly and incomprehensibly. They execrate 



1 Chytraeus also here gives his outline and names as the 
main parts the headings which arc given in this outline. 



196 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

as blasphemy the doctrine that it is received orally 
with bread and wine even by the hypocrites. 8b. 



B. The Lutheran Doctrine of the Augsburg Con- 
fession 

1. The historical form of presentation in the fol- 
lowing symbols: 

(a) The Augsburg Confession, Small Catechism 
and Apology. 9-1 1. 

(b) The Wittenberg Concordia of 1536. 12-16. 

(c) The Articles of Smalcald. 17-19. 

(d) Luther's Large Catechism. 20-27. 

(e) Luther in his Large Confession. 28-33. 

These historical documents show what was al- 
ways the proper sense and understanding 
of the Augsburg Confession. 

2. The various forms of expression, viz., "is the 
body," or "is the communion of Christ," and, also, 
"under," "with," "in" the bread are used to reject the 
Romanist doctrine of transubstantiation, and to indi- 
cate the sacramental union and Real Presence. 35. 

(a) Thus in the person of Christ different ex- 
pressions are used to bring out the one 
fact of a personal union. 36. 

(6) Many eminent teachers use the personal 
union of the divine and human nature as 
a parallel for the sacramental union of 
bread and wine with the body and blood of 
Christ. 37. 

(c) This union in the sacrament is not a personal 
union, but a "sacramental union," and these 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 197 

forms are used to reject any denial of the 
Real Presence. 38-41. 

II. The Real Presence Is Taught by the 

Scriptures 

A. The Lutheran Exegesis 

1. The words of institution must be taken literally. 
"Since our Lord Jesus Christ . . . after the Last 

Supper ... in the institution of this most venerable 
sacrament . . . spake these words concerning the 
bread . . . and wine : Take, etc., we are in duty 
bound . . . with simple faith and due obedience to 
receive these words as they sound, in their proper and 
plain sense, as Abraham took God's words literally." 
46-47. 

(a) All circumstances of the institution demand 

this. 48. 

(b) They exclude "metaphor" (or change of 

meaning: "bread" is equal to "spiritual 
food"), and "metonymy" (change of mean- 
ing in "body" as equal to "symbol of my 
body"). 49. 

(c) Christ Himself interpreted His meaning by 

adding the words: "given for you," "shed 
for you." 50-51. 

(d) All four records of institution agree ab- 

solutely in regard to the bread; the words 
of Luke and Paul in regard to the wine 
can have no other meaning than the words 
of Matthew and Mark: "This is my blood 
of the new testament." 52-53. 

2. The reference to the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor. 



198 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

10: 16 establishes this interpretation of the Real Pres- 
ence as correct. 54a. 

(a) Then even now body and blood is received 

by all who receive the bread and wine. 54b. 

(b) If the Reformed interpretation were correct, 

then it would be: "a communion of the 
spirit, power and benefits of Christ." 55. 

(c) If Paul spoke only of communion through 

faith, he would not say "the bread," but 
"the spirit" or "faith" is the communion. 
56. 

(d) His words show that all who partake of the 

bread become participants of the body of 
Christ (a sacramental or oral participa- 
tion). 56b. 

(e) This is also shown by the following com- 

parison: By eating the offerings to the 
idols they came into fellowship with 
heathen demonolatry ; by eating the sacra- 
ment they become participants of the body 
and blood of Christ. Paul warns against 
this abuse of the sacrament, which brings 
judgment and condemnation. But the 
spiritual communion with Christ cannot be 
abused, and, therefore, be warned against 
that. 57. 

B. The Lutheran Doctrine Based Upon This 
Exegesis 

1. The literal interpretation of the words of insti- 
tution is the genuine doctrine of the Augsburg Con- 
fession. We intend to abide by it. 58-593. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 199 

2. St. Paul teaches expressly that the unworthy and 
godless receive the true body and blood of Christ, and 
by so doing grievously sin against the same (i Cor. 
11:27), not merely against the signs, symbols and 
presentation. 60. 



III. Of "Spiritual" and "Sacramental" Eating 

1. What is the difference between the two? 

(a) The "spiritual eating" (John 6 : 54) is noth- 

ing else than faith in the Saviour who died 
for us. 61-62. The "oral" or "sacramental" 
eating is partaking of the bread and wine 
in the sacrament, and receiving thereby the 
true, essential body and blood of Christ, 
whether we believe or not, as taught by 
Christ. 63. 

(b) This is plainly the sense of the institution: 

Christ commands an "oral" eating of His 
body, and adds the command, "This do in 
remembrance of me," whereby He refers 
to and demands besides this oral eating 
"faith" (which is the spiritual eating, etc.) 
64-65. 

(c) This is the ancient teaching, cf. authorities 

quoted. 66. 

(d) The derision heaped by the opponents upon 

this doctrine hits not only us, but, above 
all, Christ, St. Paul, and the whole ancient 
Church. 67. 

2. Who are the "unworthy" and the "worthy" 
guests? 



200 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

(a) The first are those who come without true 

repentance and faith. 68. 

(b) The weak, diffident, troubled and longing for 

more faith, etc., are the truly worthy 
guests for whom this sacred feast has been 
instituted. 69-71. 
3. Does the "Real Presence" depend upon consecra- 
tion or faith? 

(a) The true presence depends not upon man's 

word or work, but alone upon the power of 
the Almighty and the institution of Christ. 
73-74. Christ's word is efficacious to-day, 
so that wherever the sacrament is distrib- 
uted according to the institution, Christ's 
body and blood are truly present by virtue 
of the first institution. 75. Cf. Chrysos- 
tom, j6, and Luther. 77-78. 

(b) The words of institution should be spoken 

or sung distinctly. 

(1) To render obedience to Christ's com- 
mand. 80. 

(2) To excite the faith of the hearers con- 
cerning the fruit. 81. 

(3) To consecrate or bless the elements. 82. 

(c) Essential is also the distribution; for apart 

from the divinely instituted act it is no 
sacrament. 83-85. The "use" here includes 
the entire visible action, and comprises con- 
secration and reception. 86. But apart 
from this the elements are no sacrament. 

(d) "Faith" (or spiritual communion with 

Christ) does not make this act a sacrament, 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 201 

for that would mean that the unworthy- 
received only bread and wine. 88. But the 
sacrament depends only upon the word and 
institution of God, irrespective of the char- 
acter of the minister or the communicant. 
Even as the gospel is true in itself, though 
it does not work unto salvation in the un- 
believer. 89. Otherwise more would de- 
pend upon man's faith than upon Christ's 
promise. 90. 

IV. Refutation of the Arguments of the Oppo- 
nents 

A. In General 

1. The arguments against this doctrine, drawn from 
the nature of human bodies, ascension, glorification, 
etc., have been answered in detail by Luther in various 
books. Nothing new has been produced by the oppo- 
nents since then. 91. 

2. We shall not depart from the simple, distinct 
sense of the words of institution, for the following 
reasons stated by Luther : 92-93. 

(a) Jesus Christ is undivided and inseparable, 

God incarnate. 94. 

(b) God's "right hand" is everywhere. 94. 

(c) God's Word does not deceive. 95. 

(d) God has not only one, but many ways of be- 

ing present. 97. 
(1) Bodily — as before His glorification on 
earth. (We do not speak here of such 
local presence.) 99. 



202 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

(2) Spiritually — not confined locally, e.g., 
after resurrection. Analogy : Sound, light, 
etc., 100. 

(3) Divine — as the Second Person of the 
Trinity, being omnipresent. 101-102. (Per- 
haps He has also other modes of which 
we know nothing.) 103. 

3. Luther here speaks of "spiritual" presence (over 
against a "bodily" or "local" presence), but he does 
not use this word "spiritual" in the sense of the sac- 
ramentarians (spiritual communion), but for the 
supernatural, heavenly mode according to which He is 
truly present in the Lord's Supper. 104. 

(a) Thereby we reject the Capernaitic view 

slanderously assigned to us by the sacra- 
mentarians. 105a. 

(b) The participation occurs through the eating, 

but the mode is "spiritual." 105b. 

4. We base our doctrine of the Real Presence on 
the truth and omnipotence of God. And this basis is 
strong enough to withstand all assaults. 106. 

B. Doctrines Rejected in Particular 

1. Romish errors: The papistic doctrine of transub- 
stantiation, 103, of the mass, 109, and the denial of 
cup to the laity, no. 

2. The various Reformed errors. 1 13-127. 



ARTICLE VIII. CONCERNING THE PER- 
SON OF CHRIST 

I. Development of the Text 

The text of this article is based upon the draft 
furnished by Andreae. Chemnitz amplified it very 
carefully. Further additions were made, especially at 
Bergen. 

In i -12 we have the work of Andreae with addi- 
tions in 4 by Chemnitz, in 6 by Chytraeus, in n by 
Chemnitz, and in 12 by both Chemnitz and Chytraeus. 
13-30 were added at Torgau with changes made at 
Bergen in 18, 19, 26, 28. 31-35 were substituted for pas- 
sages inserted by Chemnitz, Chytraeus and at Torgau. 
36-37, Chemnitz; 38-45, Bergen (taking the place of 
Chemnitz's paragraphs). 46-62, Chemnitz (with very 
few later changes) ; 63, Bergen ; 64-66, Chemnitz ; 
67-79, Andreae, with later additions in 70, 73-74, and 
78; 80-85, Maulbrunn Formula; 86, Torgau; 87-96, 
Andreae (with a few changes). 

11. contents of this article 
/. The Controversy 

The sacramentarians have argued against the doc- 
trine of the Real Presence : Christ's body, being a true 
human body, cannot be in heaven and on earth at the 
same time; such majesty is peculiar to God. 1-2. 

The Crypto-Calvinists adopted this doctrine con- 
203 



204 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

cerning Christ, and charged all ancient heresies against 
the true Lutherans. 3-4. 

//. The Thetical Statement 
A. The Correct Doctrine of the Person of Christ 

1. The Son of God, the Second Person of the Trin- 
ity, assumed human nature into the unity of His per- 
son, so that now there is one person, who is at the 
same time true God and true man. 5-6. 

2. Thenceforth there are in this one person two 
distinct natures : not mingled with, or separated from 
or changed into each other. 7. 

3. Each nature retains its own properties. 8. 

(a) The essential properties of the divine nature 

are, to be almighty, infinite, omnipresent, 
omniscient ; these never become essential 
properties of the human nature. 9. 

(b) The essential properties of the human nature 

are, to be corporeal, to be flesh and blood, 
to be finite, to die, ascend, move, etc. ; 
these never become properties of the 
divine nature. 10. 

4. Since the incarnation these two natures consti- 
tute one person. Hence the person does not exist any 
more without the human nature. II. 

5. The assumed human nature has and retains its 
own properties and has been exalted and glorified at 
the right hand of majesty, power above every creat- 
ure. 12. 

(a) This majesty was given to His humanity in 
incarnation in the union of divine and 
human natures. 13. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 2 05 

( i ) This union is not, as Nestorius thought, 
like the union of two boards without com- 
munication. 14-16. 

(2) But it is a union so that two natures 
have true communion in one person with- 
out mingling, 17 (though the Fathers used 
the term "mixture" in a good sense, 18a), 
such as in fire and iron, or body and soul 
(not as in mead, 18b), so that God is man 
and man is God — but each nature is and 
retains its own. 19. 

(3) On account of the true union the suffer- 
ing was the suffering, etc., of the Son of 
God, though the divine nature cannot suf- 
fer, die, etc., cf. Luther against Zwingli's 
Alloeosis (naming one nature and meaning 
the other). 21. 

(4) Hence the Greeks used the terms koino- 
nia and henosis. 22. 

(b) On account! of this union and communion, 

His humanity partakes in the majesty of 
the divinity ; for the union is real. 23. 

(c) On account of this union, Mary is the 

mother not only of a mere man, but of the 
Son of God, and He reveals His majesty 
in His miracles. 24-25. 

(d) And hence the human nature was exalted 

above all creatures, i.e., He laid aside the 
form of a servant, but retains eternally 
His human nature. The majesty belonged 
to Him in His humiliation, but He made 
no use of it. 25-26. Now He is present 



206 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

not only as God, but as God-man in a 
supernatural way according to the manner 
of God's right hand, i.e., the almighty 
power. 27-28. In this power He can also 
be and is present in the Holy Supper. 
29-30. 

B. The Communion of the Properties of the Two 
Natures 

The result of this personal union is the communica- 
tio idiomatum; for without such union the properties 
would not be communicated. 31-35. 

1. Genus idiomaticum. The properties of each 
nature are ascribed to the entire person, to the God- 
man. 36. 

(a) This does not mean that the properties be- 

long to both natures, but are ascribed to 
the person according to the one nature, 
e.g., the Son of God (that is, the person) 
was born, Christ suffered, etc., according 
to the flesh. 37. 

(b) With Luther, we reject Zwingli's doctrine of 

an alloeosis, viz., that Christ is named, but 
only the nature is meant. 38-45. 1 

2. Genus apotelesmaticum. In the execution of 
Christ's mediatorial office, the person acts in, with and 
through both natures. 46-47. 

3. Genus majestaticum. This indicates what the 
human nature received through the personal union. 48. 



This part Lb) was added at Bergen. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 207 

(a) The divine nature did not receive or lose 

anything. 49. 

(b) Respecting the human nature 

(1) Some contended that the human nature 
in the personal union with the divine has 
only the natural properties; nothing more 
can or shall be ascribed to it. 50. 

But this is so plainly false and against the 
Word of God that even their comrades 
have rejected it. 50. 

(2) The Scriptures and Church Fathers say : 
The human nature, personally united with 
the divine, has received especially high, 
great, supernatural prerogatives and ex- 
cellencies in majesty, glory, power and 
might above everything. 51a. 

Hence in the execution of Christ's work the 
human nature now takes part, especially 
through the properties received in glorifi- 
cation. 51b. 

(c) Even the adversaries now admit this, but 

claim these are not divine properties, but 
created gifts. 52. 

(1) Christ (who knows best) has revealed 
as much as we need to know, and we 
should simply accept it by faith. 53. 

(2) It is true that created gifts have been 
given to the human nature, but it has re- 
ceived, besides these, the divine properties 
of quickening, judging, supreme power, etc. 

54-55- 

(d) Proof that these do not refer to the person 



208 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

alone, or to the divine nature alone. 56. 

(1) Whatever Christ received, He did not 
receive according to the divine nature, but 
according to the assumed human nature. 

57- 

(2) He has received the power to quicken 
and to judge, because He is the Son of 
man. 58. 

(3) His blood cleanses us and His flesh 
quickens us; here the human nature is ex- 
pressly named. 58. 

II. Detailed Statement of the Doctrine Con- 
cerning THE COMMUNICATIO IDIOMATUM 
We must believe, according to the Scriptures, that 
Christ has received the glory, etc., according to His 
human nature. The two natures are so united in 
Christ that each retains its character and that the 
properties do not become the other nature's properties. 

I. FALSE VIEWS REJECTED 

1. The divine power, majesty, etc., was not given as 
the Father gives His essence to His Son. Christ is 
equal to the Father only in the divine nature; in His 
human nature He is subordinate to God. 

(a) Hence there is no confusion, equalization or 

abolition of natures. 

(b) The power to quicken belongs to the divine 

nature ; the human nature has it not in the 
like manner. 

2. This communion has not occurred through a 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 2 09 

natural infusion of divine properties into the human 
nature. 

(a) The human nature has them not apart from 

the divine essence 
(&) The properties of the human nature were 
not laid aside or transferred into divinity. 

(c) The properties of the human nature are not 

equal to those of the divine nature. 

(d) The opposite errors are rejected by the old 

councils. 62. 
3. The expression "real communication" is op- 
posed to "verbal communion," for this communion oc- 
curred in deed and truth. 63. 

2. THE CORRECT DOCTRINE OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH 

1. The human nature of Christ received such 
majesty according to the manner of the personal union. 

(a) The entire fullness of the divinity dwells 

in Christ bodily (as in His own body), not 
as in men and angels. 64. 

(b) Hence it shines forth in, with and through 

the human nature in its majesty, power, 
etc., when and where Christ wills (as the 
soul in the body, the fire through the iron). 

(c) In the time of humiliation the majesty was 

concealed, but now it is exercised in heaven 
and on earth before all saints. 

(d) In eternal life we shall behold this glory 

face to face. 65. 

2. There is only one divine omnipotence — the di- 
vine. 66. It shines, manifests and exercises itself 



210 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

in, with and through the assumed nature voluntarily 
(as the fire shines through the iron). 

3. This majesty belongs to the person not only ac- 
cording to His divine nature, or nominally. 67-68. 

(a) For per phrasin also the believers have it. 69. 

(b) But in Christ it dwells bodily. 70. 

4. The kind of communication. 

(a) Not an infusion of the divine majesty in 
such a way that the divine is weakened 
by surrendering to another (as wine or oil 
poured out). 71. 

(&) But God has given to the assumed nature the 
Spirit without measure. 72. 

( 1 ) He knows not only some things, but He 
knows and can do all things. 73-75. 

(2) On account of the personal union, only 
His flesh and blood are the true quicken- 
ing food, etc., and He only can say: "I am 
with you always." 76. He is not present 
according to His divine nature and absent 
according to His assumed nature wherever 
He will. 77. This has been promised as 
the Head of the Church and guaranteed in 
the Lord's Supper. 79. 

(c) This was also the doctrine of Luther, as his 

writings prove. 80-86. 1 

5. Hence we reject it as a pernicious error if such 
majesty is denied to Christ according to His human 
nature. 



1 The sections 80-86 were added at Torgau ; they were taken 
from the Maulbrunn Formula. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 211 

(a) This would deprive Christians of the con- 

solation that their Head, King, and High 
Priest is present with and dwelling in 
them. 

(b) It would leave only the consuming fire of 

divinity. 

(c) He has promised the presence of Him who 

can have sympathy with us as man accord- 
ing to the assumed nature which makes 
Him our brother and our flesh. 87. 

3. ANTITHESES 

We reject as false the following doctrines: 

1. The human nature has been mixed or trans- 
formed into the divine. 89. 

2. The human nature is omnipresent by its own 
power and property. 90. 

3. The human nature has been equal to the divine 
nature in substance, essence or essential properties. 

4. The human nature has been .extended locally 
everywhere. (Yet His almighty power can fulfill the 
promise of His real presence without destroying His 
true humanity.) 

5. The human nature alone has suffered for us and 
atoned for us, and the Son of God did not take part. 

6. Christ is present in Word and Sacrament only ac- 
cording to His divinity, and His human nature has 
no part in this presence. 

7. The assumed human nature does not really 
share divine power, wisdom, majesty and glory, but 
this is merely a phrase. 

All these errors are condemned as contrary to the 



212 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

Bible, and all Christians are warned simply to be- 
lieve the Word and to comfort themselves by the fact 
that Christ has placed our human flesh and blood to 
the right hand of God. 96. 



ARTICLE IX. CONCERNING THE DESCENT 

TO HELL 

i. Historical Introduction 

In 1550 the superintendent of Hamburg, John 
Aepinus, had caused a controversy by teaching in lec- 
tures to the clergy : The descent to hell is a part of the 
work of atonement, and belongs to the state of humili- 
ation. Whilst the body of Christ rested in the grave, 
His soul entered the place of the dead, in order to 
share the fate of sinful mankind. He did not tri- 
umph, nor did He suffer the torments of hell. 

Many associates of Aepinus opposed these views, 
since it was against the word: "It is finished." Aepi- 
nus was very modest and quiet in his defence, but 
some opponents (especially Epping, Garz and Hack- 
rott) were rude and insolent and carried the matter 
into the pulpits; they were deposed, not on account 
of the difference, but on account of the manner and 
way in which they spoke and acted (1551). Melanch- 
thon was asked for his opinion, but avoided a clear 
answer, and admonished parties to drop the whole dis- 
cussion. Westphal, Flacius and Gallus in essentials 
sided with Aepinus. The same matter was ventilated 
also in Mecklenburg and Pomerania, and in Augs- 
burg (1565). Calvin and the Heidelberg Catechism 
interpret the "descended to hell" as Christ's suffering 
for our sins before death. 

213 



214 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

2. HISTORY OF THE TEXT 

This article was added at Torgau, and the sermon 
referred to in i was recited with a short preamble, 
stating that in regard to this question all unnecessary 
and over-curious questions should be avoided. It is 
translated in Jacobs, Vol. II, pages 249-253. A short 
synopsis was substituted at Bergen, with a few further 
remarks. 

3. CONTENTS OF THE ARTICLE 

We refer to Luther's sermon at Torgau as a correct 
statement. There a distinction is made between the 
burial and the descent to hell. The whole person (the 
God-man) overpowered Satan and vanquished the 
power of hell. 2. How this was done is not explained, 
but must be accepted as a fact, since the Word says 
so. 3a. In this way we know that neither hell nor 
Satan can do us harm, if we believe in Christ. 3b. 



ARTICLE X. CONCERNING ADIAPHORA 

i. History 1 of the Text 

This article originally (in the Swabian Concordia) 
was article seven, preceding the article of the Lord's 
Supper. No article of Andreae suffered as few changes 
as this one. Hardly a word was expunged, only ad- 
ditions were made — and of those not few. In con- 
sequence of this some sentences became rather un- 
wieldy. Chemnitz added (besides 2 and 3, where he 
inserted three clauses) only seven words. Chytraeus 
added 5-7, 12-13, and amended 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 by in- 
sertions. At Torgau 18, 25 and 29 were added, and 
the passage, 19-23, was taken in from the Maulbrunn 
Formula. The only addition made at Bergen was that 
24 was inserted at the request of the Lower Saxons 
and Braunschweig. 

2. CONTENTS OF THE ARTICLE 

I. The Controversy 

Some say: In "adiaphoris" (middle things) we may 
make concessions to the opponents, even if we do not 
agree in doctrinal matters. 

Others say : We cannot and must not do so. 

77. Affirmative Statement 
1. What are "adiaphora," or matters of indiffer- 



*For History, see page 41 f in this book, under Leipzig In- 
terim, etc. 

215 



216 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

Not anything forbidden by God, nor anything which 
is to cover the difference from Romanism, nor useless 
pomp. s-7. 

But such ceremonies as are not in themselves wor- 
ship or part of worship. 8. 

2. How are they to be treated? 

(a) A church has the power and right to change 

them as considered most beneficial. 9. 

(b) In time of confession the true doctrine must 

be confessed not only in words, but also 
in fact, by rejecting ceremonies imposed 
by opponents. 10-13. 

(1) For here not the indifferent things are 
in danger, but the articles of faith, and 
Christian freedom. 14-15. 

(2) By concessions in indifferent things op- 
ponents are strengthened, whilst believers 
are weakened, etc. 16. 

(3) This is the historical Lutheran position 
as expressed in the former concessions. 
10-25. 

///, Antitheses, 26-31 



ARTICLE XL CONCERNING PREDESTINA- 
TION 

i. Historical Introduction 

In the opening paragraph of this article the state- 
ment is made that no public dissension causing offence 
had yet occurred. Here the two modifiers, "public" 
and "causing offence," must be strongly emphasized. 
The passage must not be understood to say that the 
matter had not been discussed in public, nor that there 
had not been differences of opinion. Much, very 
much, had been written in the previous years on this 
topic; much that had been partly correct, and also 
many a page that was wrong. A public controversy 
had occurred at Strasburg in 1562. Here John Mar- 
bach, the Lutheran, and Zanchi, the Crypto-Calvinist, 
had taken different sides. The matter had been set- 
tled by a board of arbitration, in which Jakob Andreae 
was foremost; Zanchi signed Lutheran articles with 
a mental reservation. 

The matter of predestination had attracted much 
attention since 155 1, when it became evident that both 
Beza and Calvin taught in such a way as to make uni- 
versal grace nugatory. 1 Chemnitz afterwards con- 
sidered it advisable to preach a sermon on this article, 



1 See Polykarp Leyser, Abgenoetigter Bericht, 1594. re- 
printed in Harms, Sammlungen, 1 (1892), page 4, and 4 
(1898), page 85. 

217 



218 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

which was published separately and was subsequently- 
reprinted several times and received into his Postille. 
The writings of Flacius, Amsdorf, Heshusius and 
Cyriacus Spangenberg 1 especially contained explana- 
tions of this doctrine which might occasion a new 
controversy. To preclude this, Andreae composed an 
article when he recast his sermons into the Swabian 
Concordia. 

2. HISTORY OF THE TEXT 

The article of Andreae 2 consists of an introduction, 
a distinction between the terms "prescience or provi- 
dence" and "predestination" (often used promiscu- 
ously, at that time) ; then came the statement of the 
doctrine itself, and finally a few antitheses. 

Chemnitz adopted the draft of Andreae, and made 
comparatively few changes. These changes consisted : 
(i) In amplifications by the addition of explanatory 
words and phrases to make the matter more intelligible 
(especially in 3-8). (2) In the addition of new state- 
ments (this especially in 9). Furthermore, the treat- 
ment of the doctrine itself was introduced by a brief 
synopsis of the whole doctrine (of which 13 was 
afterwards retained, whilst the balance was replaced 
by new material). In Andreae's statement of the doc- 
trine itself Chemnitz made very few changes, almost all 
of them merely verbal. 

But the Swabian-Saxon Formula presented a text 



1 Sermons of this author were afterwards reprinted by 
the Reformed against the Form of Concord. 

2 See the text in Harms' Sammlungen, No. 7 (1914, and a 
reprint by George J. Fritschel (1914)- 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 219 

almost twice as long. Not was only 2 added, but each 
of 3-9 received additions. Also 10-12 were now in- 
serted. The preamble to the short statement was 
amended by inserting the clause, "not to specu- 
late . . Word, viz." Instead of the brief synopsis 
a long statement in eight paragraphs was taken from 
the sermon of Chemnitz and his "Enchiridion." 15-24, 
And then a detailed statement of the doctrine was 
given in 25-64, taken almost verbally from Chemnitz's 
"Enchiridion." In 65-93 comparatively few changes 
were made. 

The Torgau Formula has few important changes : 
15 is substituted for the previous form; editorial 
changes occur in 24, 28, 29, 35, 36, 52, 79 and 92. 39 
and 40 were recast. At Bergen additions were made 
in 46, 37, 42, 52, 55, 88, in part to satisfy demands 
made in various "opinions." * 

3. CONTENTS OF THIS ARTICLE 

/. Introduction 
No public controversies have occurred concerning 
this article. But there is a great diversity of expres- 
sion in the discussion among the Lutheran theologians. 
Hence this article has been inserted in order to pre- 
clude future strife. 1-2. 

77. Definitions and a Brief Summary 
1. The distinction between "foreknowledge" and 

"predestination." 

"Foreknowledge" extends to all creatures, both good 

and bad, 3-4; and to all things. But it is not the 



220 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

source or cause of evil things ; on the contrary, it sets 
a limit and measurement to evil, and regulates it for 
good. 6. The source of all evil are the wicked wills 
of the devil and of man. 7. 

"Predestination" extends only to the good, namely, 
the children of God. 5. And it is the source which 
procures, works, helps and promotes whatsoever be- 
longs to salvation. It is the rock upon which our 
salvation is founded. 8. 

2. How must predestination be considered? 

(a) It must not be considered a priori; for then 
the idea might arise that God foresaw how 
many are to be saved or lost ; or, God held 
a review, and decreed that this one shall 
be saved, and that one shall be damned. 9. 
From this mode of consideration arises either 
false security or else despondency. 10-11. 
But all doctrines of God lead to the oppo- 
site results, viz., contrition, faith, good 
works. 12. 
(&) It must be considered a posteriori, as com- 
prehending the whole plan of God pertain- 
ing to our redemption, 1-2, call, 3, right- 
eousness, 4, and salvation, 5-8. 13-22. 
This must not be considered abstractly (in 
itself), but concretely (in its reference to 
the individual believer), how and in what 
manner God would execute His plan. And 
all this must be taken together as the 
simple and correct doctrine of predestina- 
tion. 24. 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 221 

777. A More Detailed Statement 

A. The Presentation of Chemnitz 

i. For salutary use the explanation must also show 
how I can know who are the elect. 25. 

2. The details: 

(a) The source of what we know about predes- 
tination is not reason, is not the law, is not 
evidence, but only revelation. 26. 

(&) It has been revealed through the call. 27 
(cf. 2 and 3 above). 

(c) Both the law and the gospel are univer- 

sal. 28. 

(d) God's call is earnest, and we should accept 

it. 29. 

(e) Hence the elect are those described as sheep, 

hearers, believers, sanctified, those who 

hunger and thirst. 30. 
(/) Their sonship or adoption is attested to them 

by the Holy Spirit. 31. 
(g) Finally, God has promised in future to finish 

the work begun. 32. 

3. We should concern ourselves with this revealed 
will of God, and strive to enter in at the narrow gate, 
and not trouble ourselves about the secrets of God's 
eternal will. 33. 

4. The doctrine of reprobation. 

(a) It is not God's will that any should perish, 

as if God's will was contradictory. 35-36. 

(b) God offers His grace universally. 37. 

(c ) God's grace is truly present and active in the 

Word: but it is not God's will that those 



222 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

should be the elect who despise, reject, blas- 
pheme and persecute His Word. 39. 
(d) God has also decreed to reject those who 
harden themselves, etc. And this is the 
reason why many are called and few 
chosen. 40. For few accept the Word, 
many reject it. 41. Few of the latter re- 
tain it ; many become blacksliders. 42. The 
reason of this is not God's predestination, 
but man's perverse will. 

5. The practical test of this doctrine by comparing 
it with other doctrines. 

(a) It affirms the doctrine of justification by 

grace alone. 43. 

(b) It overthrows the doctrine of both Pelagian- 

ism and Synergism. 44. 

(c) It shows the eternal interest of God in my 

personal salvation. 45. 

(d) It shows that my salvation rests in the 

strong hand of God. 46-47. 

(e) It shows, amid temptations and crosses, that 

God purposes to lead every Christian 
through the cross to the crown. 48-49. 

(/) It shows that there will always be a Church. 
50. 

(g) It contains powerful admonitions and warn- 
ings. 51a. In short, it stands the test out- 
lined in 12. 51b. 

6. The secrets of God's wonderful ways. 52-63. 
(a) Besides these revealed things, God has kept 

concealed much that must and will remain 
unknown to us, though the curiosity of 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 223 

man busies itself most about it. 52-53. 

(1) The number of those who will enter 
heaven and hell ; God knows it, but it is not 
revealed to us. 54-55. 

(2) The time of each individual's conver- 
sion and return. 56. 

(3) God's ways of mercy and punishment 
in the case of backsliders. 57-62. 

(b) In all these things which go beyond these 
limits we remain silent, and do not chal- 
lenge God's ways, but imitate Paul, who 
excludes all vain questions by his doxol- 
ogy: "O the depths of the riches," etc. 
63-64. 

B. The Presentation of Andreae 
I. The doctrine of predestination must be consid- 
ered in Christ. 

(a) For we have been predestined in Christ 

(Eph. 1:4). 

(1) The Father directs us to Him. 

(2) The Son calls us to Himself. 

(3) The Spirit brings no other message. 
Hence the Holy Trinity points to Christ as 

the Book of Life, in which we should look 
for our predestination. 65-66. 

(b) Christ proclaims our eternal election in the 

words : "Repent and believe" ; "Everyone 
that seeth the Son and believeth," etc. ; 
"God so loved the world." 67. 

(c) This proclamation is to be preached univers- 

ally. 68. 



224 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

(d) The Holy Spirit works true faith in the 

hearers. 69. 

(e) Whosoever would be saved should hear 

Christ, who invites all. 70. 

(/) Hence we should repent and believe and en- 
trust ourselves entirely to Him. 71-72. 

(g) The Holy Spirit impels the elect (believers) 
to good works; we should not resist this 
impulse, but exercise all Christian virtues. 

73- 
(h) The Holy Spirit bears witness to them. 74. 
(i) For the future God has promised His grace 

to His Children, and will forgive their sins 

in daily repentance. 75. 

2. It is true that no one can come to Christ except 
the Father draw him. 

(a) But the Father draws not directly, but 

through the Word and sacraments. 

(b) God does not want man to wait for a direct 

drawing outside of the means of grace. 

(c) God uses the ordained means, and thereby 

draws the sinner from the jaws of hell into 
His kingdom. 76. 

(d) Hence every sinner should repair to the 

means of grace, assured that God draws 
through them. JJ. 

3. That only a few are saved is the fault of those 
who reject salvation. 

(a) They hear the word and despise it. 78. 

(b) The devil makes the vessels of dishonor; 

God finds them as such and makes them 
vessels of honor, if they repent and be- 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 225 

lieve; but He punishes impenitent sinners. 

79-82. 
(c) God often punishes sin by hardening the 

hearts of the obdurately impenitent, as we 

see in the case of Pharaoh. 83-86. 
The test of this doctrine. 

(a) It gives all glory to God and His eternal 

mercy. 87-88. 

(b) It does not produce either despondency or 

frivolity. 80-90. Any doctrine which pro- 
duces these is false. 91-92. 

(c) Hence we will retain this plain, correct and 

useful interpretation, and will shun all 
acute discussions, and reject all contrary 
doctrines. 93. 



ARTICLE XII. OF VARIOUS SECTS 

This article enumerates the errors of sects outside 
of the Lutheran Church. The text in the Book of 
Concord is almost identical with the first draft of 
Andreae. Only No. 13 in Miiller, p. 727 (Bergen), 
16, 17, 29b (Chemnitz), together with a few verbal 
changes were added in the various revisions. It 
is not necessary to furnish a schedule of this article, 
as they are in the form of a schedule. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Material for Further Study 

In the subjoined list the material which is recommended 
to students in seminary work is given first. In the second 
list for each article the material considered most instructive 
for advanced work is listed. 

(The Index volumes of Schaff-Herzog and Hauck, RE-, will direct the 
student to other parts where the material is touched upon.) 

Article I 

In regard to Flacius, see Richard, The Confessional His- 
tory, pp. 323-328; Schmauk, The Confessional Principle, pp. 
5o6f., 644, 754f-; Schaff-Herzog, IV, p. 321 ff.; Hauck, RE., 
VI, pp. 82-92. 

Preger, Matthias Flacius: His life, I, 1-37 and elsewhere; 
his doctrine, II, 310-412; Frank, Theol. der C. F., I, 50-112; 
O. Ritschl, Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus, II, 447- 
454- 

Article II 

Richard, pp. 333-37* ', Schmauk, pp. $99-601, 638, 641 ; 
Schaff-Herzog, XI, 23ft.; Hauck, RE., 19, 229ft".; 97ff.; 6, 
82; 15, 322ft". 

Fischer, Melanchthons Lehre von der Bekehrung (1905) ; 
Preger, II, 1 16-135; 180-227; Frank, I, 112-240; O. Ritschl, 
II, 157-183; 423-447. 

Article III 

Tschakert, 489-497; Richard, 376-378; Schmauk, pp. 590, 
599, 638, 641, 753, 757, 759; Schaff-Herzog, VIII, 280; 
Hauck, RE., 14, 501ft. 

Preger, I, 205-297; Frank, II, 1-147; O. Ritschl, II, 116, 
156, 226-252, 455-500; Luther's Explanation of Galatians. 

226 



THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 2 27 

Article IV 

Tschakert, 514-520; Richard, pp. 394-309; Schmauk, pp. 

596, 598, 638, 641; Schaff-Herzog, VII, 134L; Hauck, RE., 
12, 8sff. ; 5, 577 ; 7, 464ff. ; Luther, Weimar Edition, 50, 461 ; 
Si, 425ff- 

Articles V, VI 

Tschakert, pp. 478-489; Richard, p. 312; Schmauk, pp. 533, 
581, 598, 641, 763; Schaff-Herzog, I, 91, 197; Hauck, RE., 
I, 585ff. ; 249ft . 

Preger, II, 251-255; Frank, II, 243ff. 

Articles VII, VIII 

Tschakert, 531-557; Richard, 305, 329-332; Schmauk, 534, 

597. 599, 605-606; Schaff-Herzog, IX, 32ff. ; Hauck, RE., 
21, i85ff.; 7, 4o8ff.; 8, 8ff. 

Calinich, Kampf und Untergang des M elanchthonianismus 
in Chursachsen, 1866; H. Schmid, Der Kampf der luth. 
Kirche um Luther s Lehre vom Abendmahle im Reformations- 
zeitalter, 1868; Frank, III, 1-396. 

Article IX 
Tschakert, pp. 557-558; Schmauk, 657; Schaff-Herzog, 
I, 595 Hauck, RE., 1, 228. 
Frank, III, 397-454- 

Article X 

Tschakert, pp. 505-514; Richard, pp. 322, 325, 392-394; 
Schmauk, pp, 533, 591, 596, 600, 641, 644; Schaff-Herzog, I, 
42L; Herzog, RE., 1, I72ff . ; 9, 2iff. 

Preger, I, 135-204; Frank, IV, 1-120; O. Ritschl, II, 328- 
3/0. 

Article XI 

Tschakert, 81 f., 559-564; Richard, pp. 333ff., 356-357; Schaff- 
Herzog, IX, 191 ff.; Hauck, RE., 12, 245ff.; 21, 6o7ff. 
Frank, IV, 120-327; Theo. Mees, Zur Dogmengeschichte, 



228 THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 

etc.; Geo. J. Fritschel, Schriftlehre von der Prddestination; 
Harms, Sammlungcn, vols. 1-7; Tressel, The Error of Mis- 
sourianism. (Here the series of selections from the old 
dogmaticians in English translation is of permanent value.) 
Baier ed. Walther, III, pp. 531-613- 



LIBRARY 



OF CONGRESS 



01 



7 525 642 8 % 



